IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES MCASSEY : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

DISCOVERY MACHINE INC., ANNA : NO. 16-0882

GRIFFITH, TODD GRIFFITH, MOLLY :

LUSK, HOWARD LEWIS and VANESSA :

CHAPLA :

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Savage, J. April 18, 2016

The defendants have moved to transfer this employment discrimination action to

the Middle District of Pennsylvania where the plaintiff’s employment was based, his 

former employer is headquartered, and three of the five defendants reside. Opposing 

the transfer, the plaintiff argues the case should remain in the Eastern District where he 

resides and performed some of his work. 

After weighing all relevant factors, we conclude that the balance tips in favor of 

transfer. Therefore, the defendants’ motion to transfer will be granted.

Background

James McAssey was the Vice President of Business Development for Discovery 

Machine, Inc. from June 2010 to May 2015.

1

 Although he lived in West Chester, 

Pennsylvania, his employment was based at Discovery Machine’s headquarters in 

Williamsport, Pennsylvania, where the company maintained an apartment for him and 

 1 Compl. (Doc. No. 1) ¶¶ 20, 22.

Case 4:16-cv-00705-JPW-MCC Document 19 Filed 04/18/16 Page 1 of 8
2

other employees.2 McAssey spent several days each month there.

3

 He also traveled

extensively outside Pennsylvania as part of his business development responsibilities.4

According to McAssey, he was repeatedly harassed during his employment.5 

He alleges that Anna Griffith, an owner and CEO of Discovery Machine, and four fellow

employees subjected him to a hostile work environment. He claims his employment 

was terminated based on his sex and disability in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations 

Act.6 In particular, he claims Griffith propositioned him sexually and requested to stay 

at his West Chester home during two business trips.

7

 He was terminated several weeks 

after he refused her second request.8 

Three of the five individual defendants, including Griffith, reside in the Middle 

District of Pennsylvania. Two defendants reside in North Carolina.9 McAssey continues 

to reside in the Eastern District.10 

Legal Standard

A defendant moving for transfer of venue bears the burden of demonstrating that 

(1) the case could have been brought initially in the proposed transferee forum; (2) the 

 2 Mot. to Transfer (Doc. No. 10) at 3; Resp. (Doc. No. 14) at 2. 

3 Resp. at 2.

4 Id.

5 Compl. ¶¶ 25, 29. 

6 Id. ¶¶ 32, 36, 41. 

7 Resp. at 2.

8 Id. at 2-3. 

9 Compl. at 5; Mot. to Transfer at 3. 

10 Resp. at 3. 

Case 4:16-cv-00705-JPW-MCC Document 19 Filed 04/18/16 Page 2 of 8
3

proposed transfer will be more convenient for the parties and witnesses; and (3) the 

proposed transfer will be in the interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Jumara v. State 

Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995); Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 

22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970). Once the defendant establishes that the action could have been 

brought in the proposed district, the court must weigh several private and public interest 

factors to determine whether the balance of convenience tips in favor of transfer. 

Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80.

Among the factors considered when determining whether transfer is more 

convenient for the parties and in the interest of justice are: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of 

forum; (2) the defendant’s preferred forum; (3) the place where the claim arose; (4) the 

relative ease of access to the sources of proof; (5) the convenience of the parties as 

demonstrated by relative financial status and physical location; (6) the availability of 

compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses; (7) the convenience of the 

witnesses; (8) the practical problems that make trial of a case expensive and inefficient; 

and, (9) “public interest” factors, such as congestion of court dockets and the 

relationship of the jury and the community to the underlying district. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 

879-80. Depending on the nature and the facts of the case, these factors overlap and 

are intertwined. 

Because the analysis involved is “flexible and individualized,” the district court 

has broad discretion in deciding a motion for transfer of venue. Stewart Org., Inc. v. 

Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). Despite this wide latitude, a transfer motion is not 

to be granted without a careful weighing of factors favoring and disfavoring transfer. 

See Shutte, 431 F.2d at 24-25.

Case 4:16-cv-00705-JPW-MCC Document 19 Filed 04/18/16 Page 3 of 8
4

Analysis

Only if the action could have been brought in the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

can it be transferred there. Thus, the threshold question is whether that district is a 

proper venue. 

There are three possible venues: (1) where all defendants reside in the same 

state, the district where any defendant resides; (2) the district where a substantial part 

of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; and (3) in the case where 

there is no other district in which the action can be brought, the district where a 

defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(b).

A substantial part of the events happened in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 

Because McAssey was employed, harassed, discriminated against and terminated in 

the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the action could have been brought there. 

The inquiry now turns to weighing the private and public interest factors to 

determine which forum is more convenient for the parties and the witnesses, and will 

serve the interest of justice. 

(1) The plaintiff’s choice of forum

The plaintiff’s choice of forum typically receives “paramount consideration.” 

Shutte, 431 F.2d at 25. However, it is not controlling. The plaintiff’s choice may be 

outweighed by other interests weighing in favor of transfer. Id. 

McAssey’s choice of forum weighs against transfer. In balancing the other 

interests, we shall give strong deference to his choice.

Case 4:16-cv-00705-JPW-MCC Document 19 Filed 04/18/16 Page 4 of 8
5

 (2) The defendant’s preferred forum

The defendants prefer the Middle District of Pennsylvania because Discovery 

Machine is headquartered there and three of the five individual defendants reside there. 

Hence, the defendant’s preferred forum favors transfer. 

(3) The place where the claim arose

Where the claim arose implicates other factors in the analysis. It involves 

questions of access to proof, choice of law, convenience of the parties and the 

witnesses, availability of witnesses, and efficiency concerns. Thus, determining the 

place where the claim occurred will inform the evaluation of these other factors.

The decision to terminate McAssey was made in the Middle District. All 

documents related to his employment are maintained at Discovery Machine’s offices in 

that district.

11 All but one of the potential employee witnesses work in the Williamsport 

office.12 

McAssey claims some of the harassment occurred in the Eastern District.13 He

refers to four potential witnesses who are not employees of Discovery Machine and 

reside in the Eastern District.

14 He does not identify them or specify the subject matter 

of their testimony.15 

Because McAssey’s employment was based in the Middle District and he was 

terminated there, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. 

 11 Mot. to Transfer at 2. 

12 Id. at 3. 

13 Resp. at 3.

14 Id.

15 Id. 

Case 4:16-cv-00705-JPW-MCC Document 19 Filed 04/18/16 Page 5 of 8
6

(4) The relative ease of access to the sources of proof

The documents related to McAssey’s employment are located in the Middle 

District. The records relevant to his performance and the alleged harassment are there. 

Witnesses to McAssey’s job performance and his treatment during his employ at 

Discovery Machine are in Williamsport. This factor favors transfer. 

(5) The convenience of the parties as demonstrated by relative financial status 

and physical location

McAssey claims it would be a financial hardship for him to travel to the Middle 

District.16 The cost of travelling from his home to Williamsport or Harrisburg is not 

significant. It is a 146-mile drive to the Williamsport court house and 81 miles to the 

Harrisburg court house.

17 

The Middle District is more convenient for the defendants. Four of the five 

individual defendants work in Williamsport. Three of them reside there. The distance 

from their workplace to the court house in Philadelphia is 179 miles.18 

Discovery Machine likely has a greater ability to absorb travel costs, but its 

burden would also be greater due to the number of defendants. The cost to McAssey to 

travel to either Williamsport or Harrisburg is not significant. In weighing these 

considerations, this convenience factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer. 

 16 Id. 

17 Driving Directions from McAssey’s Home to Williamsport and Harrisburg Courthouses, Google 

Maps, https://www.google.com/maps (follow “Directions” hyperlink; insert starting point and destination; 

and search). 

18 Driving Directions from Discovery Machine’s Headquarters to James A. Byrne Courthouse, 

Google Maps, https://www.google.com/maps (follow “Directions” hyperlink; insert starting point and 

destination; and search). 

Case 4:16-cv-00705-JPW-MCC Document 19 Filed 04/18/16 Page 6 of 8
7

(6) The availability of compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses

This factor is neutral. Neither side argues that non-party witnesses would be 

subject to compulsory process in one district but not in the other. We cannot determine 

if witnesses may be required to travel more than 100 miles if this case remains here or 

is transferred. 

(7) The convenience of the witnesses

With the exception of one defendant, all employees of Discovery Machine who 

are potential witnesses work in Williamsport.19 The defendants have not identified any 

non-party witnesses. McAssey mentions four potential witnesses who reside in the 

Eastern District. He does not proffer what testimony they would provide.20 He also 

argues that “over two dozen” customers, potential customers, and partners of Discovery 

Machine reside outside both the Middle District and the Eastern District.

21 He claims it 

would be more convenient for them to travel to the Eastern District, which has a major

airport, than to the Middle District.22 Without knowing who these witnesses are and 

whether they could offer relevant testimony, we cannot determine which forum would be 

more convenient for them. Thus, because most of the known witnesses reside and 

work in the Middle District, the convenience of the witnesses favors transfer. 

(8) The practical problems that make trial of a case expensive and inefficient

There will be some inconvenience to at least some parties and witnesses 

regardless of whether the action is transferred. Trying this case in the Middle District, 

 19 Resp. at 3.

20 Id.

21 Id. 

22 Id. at 4.

Case 4:16-cv-00705-JPW-MCC Document 19 Filed 04/18/16 Page 7 of 8
8

where McAssey’s employment was based and most of the defendants and witnesses

reside, would be more efficient than resolving the case here. Thus, this factor runs in 

favor of transfer.

(9) The “public interest” factors

The Middle District has a significant interest in having this dispute, which involves

three of its residents and one of its businesses, resolved there. The Eastern District has 

less interest in this case because although McAssey’s resides here, his employment 

was based in the Middle District. 

In recent years the Eastern District has been more congested than the Middle 

District, see A.S. ex rel. Miller v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 13-3684, 2013 WL 

4401352, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2013), but this situation has changed. In the twelvemonth period ending June 30, 2015, the caseloads have shifted.

23 However, there are 

two vacancies in the Eastern District and none in the Middle District.24 

Because the Middle District has a significantly greater interest in resolving this 

case, we conclude that the public interest factors weigh slightly in favor of transfer. 

Conclusion

The balance of private and public interest factors weigh in favor of transferring 

this action to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Therefore, in the interest of justice, 

the motion to transfer venue will be granted.

 23 See U.S. District Courts Combined Civil and Criminal Federal Court Management Statistics

(June 30, 2015), available at http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/na/federal-court-managementstatistics/2015/06/30-1 (last visited April 18, 2016).

24 Current Judicial Vacancies, http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicialvacancies/current-judicial-vacancies (last updated April 18, 2016). 

Case 4:16-cv-00705-JPW-MCC Document 19 Filed 04/18/16 Page 8 of 8