Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01719/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01719-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Emmanuel C. Gonzalez
Plaintiff
Social Concepts, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

EMMANUEL C. GONZALEZ 

 v. 

SOCIAL CONCEPTS, INC. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 2:14-CV-630-JRG-RSP 

 LEAD CASE 

Case No. 2:14-CV-650-JRG-RSP 

MEMORANDUM ORDER 

Before the Court is Social Concept, Inc.’s (“SC”) Motion to Transfer Venue to the 

Northern District of California (Dkt. 20, the “Motion”). 

APPLICABLE LAW 

Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the 

interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division 

where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (2006). The first inquiry when 

analyzing a case’s eligibility for 1404(a) transfer is “whether the judicial district to which 

transfer is sought would have been a district in which the claim could have been filed.” In re 

Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (“In re Volkswagen I”). 

Once that threshold is met, courts analyze both public and private factors relating to the 

convenience of parties and witnesses as well as the interests of particular venues in hearing the 

case. See Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Bell Marine Serv., Inc., 321 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1963); In 

re Nintendo Co., Ltd., 589 F.3d 1194, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 

1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The private factors are: 1) the relative ease of access to sources of 

proof; 2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; 3) the cost 

of attendance for willing witnesses; and 4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case 

easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. In re Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203; In re Nintendo, 589 

F.3d at 1198; In re TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319. The public factors are: 1) the administrative 

Case 4:15-cv-01719-YGR Document 12 Filed 03/25/15 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

difficulties flowing from court congestion; 2) the local interest in having localized interests 

decided at home; 3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and 4) the 

avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or in the application of foreign law. In re 

Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203; In re Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1198; In re TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 

1319. 

The plaintiff’s choice of venue is not a factor in this analysis. In re Volkswagen of Am., 

Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 314-15 (5th Cir. 2008) (“In re Volkswagen II”). Rather, the plaintiff’s choice 

of venue contributes to the defendant’s burden in proving that the transferee venue is “clearly 

more convenient” than the transferor venue. In re Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315; In re 

Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1200; In re TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319. Furthermore, though the private 

and public factors apply to most transfer cases, “they are not necessarily exhaustive or 

exclusive,” and no single factor is dispositive. In re Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314-15. 

Timely motions to transfer venue “should [be given] a top priority in the handling of [a 

case],” and “are to be decided based on ‘the situation which existed when suit was instituted.’” 

In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir. 2003); In re EMC Corp., Dkt. No. 2013-

M142, 2013 WL 324154 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2013) (quoting Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 443 

(1960)). 

DISCUSSION 

A. Proper Venue 

Neither party disputes that the Northern District of California is a proper venue for this 

case. 

Case 4:15-cv-01719-YGR Document 12 Filed 03/25/15 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

B. Private Interest Factors 

 1. Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses 

“The convenience of the witnesses is probably the single most important factor in a 

transfer analysis.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1388, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2009). While the Court 

must consider the convenience of both the party and non-party witnesses, it is the convenience of 

non-party witnesses that is the more important factor and is accorded greater weight in a transfer 

of venue analysis. Aquatic Amusement Assoc., Ltd. v. Walt Disney World Co., 734 F.Supp. 54, 

57 (N.D.N.Y. 1990); see also Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3851. “A 

district court should assess the relevance and materiality of the information the witness may 

provide.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 at 1343. However, there is no requirement that the movant 

identify “key witnesses,” or show “that the potential witness has more than relevant and material 

information . . . .” Id. at 1343-44. Having reviewed the factual record, the Court finds that the 

cost of attendance for willing witnesses factor weighs in favor of transfer. 

 2. Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof 

“In patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the 

accused infringer. Consequently, the place where the defendant’s documents are kept weighs in 

favor of transfer to that location.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 

(citation omitted). Having reviewed the factual record, the Court finds that the relative ease of 

access factor weighs in favor of transfer. 

 3. Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses 

SC argues that “the Northern District of California will have subpoena power over the 

employees at Social Concepts’ Redwood City headquarters.” (Mot. at 3.) But this argument has 

little merit given that the Court has plenary power to order a party to produce witnesses under its 

control. Nevertheless, it appears from the record that there are a substantial number of potentially 

Case 4:15-cv-01719-YGR Document 12 Filed 03/25/15 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

relevant third-party witnesses that are within the subpoena power of the Northern District of 

California but outside the subpoena power of this Court. Accordingly, this factor favors transfer. 

 4. All Other Practical Problems that Make Trial of a Case Easy, Expeditious, 

and Inexpensive 

Gonzalez argues that this Court’s handling of other related cases creates economy in 

declining transfer here. The Court agrees; transfer of each of the consolidated cases here would 

create substantial inefficiencies in judicial administration and require multiple courts to conduct 

parallel proceedings, which is a waste of judicial and party resources. Accordingly, this factor 

weighs against transfer. 

C. Public Interest Factors 

 1. Local Interest in Having Localized Interests Decided at Home 

SC argues that the Northern District of California has a local interest in this suit at least in 

part because “Social Concepts is headquartered in Redwood City, California, and because the 

accused website is supported there.” (Mot. at 5) The Court notes that the connection alleged by 

SC is not a connection to “the events that gave rise to this suit,” as suggested by In re 

Volkswagen II, but rather arises from the fact that some residents of the Northern District of 

California may have an interest, financial or otherwise, in SC itself – a theory which raises 

troubling fairness implications. 545 F.3d at 318. SC has failed to show that this factor favors 

transfer, and the Court finds that this factor is neutral given SC’s acknowledgement that the 

interest in the events to give rise to the suit is “equally true throughout the United States.” (Mot. 

at 6.) 

 2. Familiarity of the Forum With the Law that Will Govern the Case, 

Administrative Difficulties Flowing From Court Congestion, and 

Avoidance of Unnecessary Problems of Conflict of Laws or in the 

Application of Foreign Law 

The Court finds that the remaining public interest factors are neutral. 

Case 4:15-cv-01719-YGR Document 12 Filed 03/25/15 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

CONCLUSION 

Having considered the relevant transfer factors, the Court finds that several of the most 

important factors favor transfer. Although Plaintiff’s arguments with regard to judicial efficiency 

are well taken, SC’s detailed factual analysis meets its burden of showing that the Northern 

District of California is a clearly more convenient venue for this case. Accordingly, the Motion 

is GRANTED and it is ORDERED that this case be transferred to the Northern District of 

California. 

Case 4:15-cv-01719-YGR Document 12 Filed 03/25/15 Page 5 of 5