unless the balance weighs strongly in the defendant's favor."
Clea h : Rublof ri in
L.L.C., 2003 WL 22382999 *3 (N.D. Tll. Oct. 16, 2003) (quoting

Vandeveld v. Christoph, 877 F. Supp. 1160, 1167 (N.D. Ill.

1995)). Accord In re National Presto Industries, Inc., F.3d

—_, 2003 WL 22389815 *1 (7th Cir. Oct. 21, 2003). However,
where the operative facts have little connection to the forum,
the plaintiff's choice is given less weight. Heston, 2003 WL
22243986 at *1; Alberdi a inis i ex 4,

Moore v. Vinoy Park Hotel Co., 2003 WL 22176072 *2 (N.D. Ill.

Sept. 15, 2003). "The movant bears the burden of proving, by
reference to particular facts and circumstances, that the

transferee forum is ‘clearly more convenient.‘'" Clear Channel,

2003 WL 22382999 at *3 (quoting Heller Financial, Inc. v. Midwhey
Powder Co,, 883 F.2d 1286, 1293 (7th Cir. 1989)); Tong v. Direct
Trading Corp., 2003 WL 22282466 *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 2003).

Both private and public interests must be considered. Private
interests that are considered include: (1) the plaintiff's
choice of forum; (2) the situs of material events; (3) ease of
access to sources of proof; (4) conveniences for the parties; and
(5) conveniences for the witnesses. Clear Channel, 2003 WL
22382999 at *3; Heston, 2003 WL 22243986 at *1; United Air Lines,

Inc. v. Mesa Airlines, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 2d 796, 798 (N.D. Ill.

1998). Public interests take into account the interests of


statistics do not support that speed of disposition would favor a
transfer to the Central District. Last, the Central District has
no more significant interest in the enforcement of the FCRA
regarding a bank in its district than this district has
concerning a resident of this district and a credit reporting
agency located in this district. The public interests do not
favor a transfer to the Central District of Illinois.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' motion to

transfer venue [8-2] is denied.

ENTER:

UpbpainT (byph.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: OCTOBER %e , 2003


Busey Bank contends that plaintiff lived in Champaign
County at the time the account was open and also contends that
any witnesses with information about the account, other than
plaintiff, would likely be current or former employees who reside
in or near Champaign County. No specific witnesses are
identified. Plaintiff presently resides in the Northern District
of Illinois. Defendant Trans Union apparently has its principal
place of business in the Northern District of Illinois. See
Individual Reference Services Group, Inc. v. Federal Trade
Commission, 145 F. Supp. 2d 6, 13-14 (D.D.C. 2001), aff'd sub

nom., Trans Union LLC v,. Federal Trade Commission, 295 F.3d
42 (D.C. Cir. 2002). AT&T apparently has its principal place
of business in New Jersey. See Bryceland v. AT&T Corp., 122
F. Supp. 2d 703, 710 n.7 (N.D. Tex. 2000).

There is no dispute that venue is proper in both this
district and the Central District of Illinois. Therefore, it
must be considered whether the conveniences of the parties and
the witnesses and the interests of justice justify transferring
this case to the Central District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a);
Heston v. Equifax Credit Information Services, 2003 WL 22243986
*1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2003). "A plaintiff's choice of forum is
entitled to substantial weight under Section 1404(a),
particularly where it is also the plaintiff's home forum.

Indeed, a plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed


justice and include: (1) the speed of the proceeding; (2) the
court's familiarity with applicable law; and (3) the relation of
the community to the occurrence and the desirability of resolving
the controversy in its locale. Clear Channel, 2003 WL 22382999
at *3; Amoco Oil Corp. v. Mobile Oi1 Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 958,
963 (N.D. Ill. 2000).

Here Busey Bank has not made an adequate showing that the
Central District is the more appropriate district. Busey Bank
contends that the central events occurred in Champaign County
where the focus of discovery will be. First, Busey Bank ignores
that only some of plaintiff's claims concern the account that was
at Busey Bank. There is nothing to indicate that the misreported
Direct Billed Card account has any relation to Champaign County.
Neither Busey Bank, nor AT&T, indicates where the records
regarding that transaction are kept. Furthermore, even as to
the Busey Bank account, some records concerning the credit
report may be stored at Trans Union facilities in Chicago.
Additionally, plaintiff claims he was damaged by effects on fees
he currently pays for a credit card, expenses of contesting the
report, and emotional distress, none of which likely center in
Champaign County. Moreover, credit reports are national (or
even global) in scope, not limited to the source of the alleged
misinformation. See Heston, 2003 WL 22243986 at *1. Even as to

any discovery that may be taken in Champaign County, there is


% Minute (rder Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

‘sacs | WILLIAM HART | Siesta

CASE NUMBER 03 C 5033 DATE | OCTOBER JO 2003

CASE DANIEL TATAR v, TRANS UNION, L.L.C., et al.

TITLE

[in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party ptaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) im Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
Q) QO Brief in support of motiondue
GB) 5 Answer brief to motion due__. Reply to answer briefdue__.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on. setfor at
(5) im} Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor_ at
(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor_ at
Q) oO Trial{set for/re-set for] on __at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial) [Hearing] held/continued to__—__at
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
DOFRCP4(m) CiLocal Rule 41.1 CIFRCP41(a)(1) [I FRCP41(a)(2).

qo {Other docket entry] Defendants’ motion to transfer venue [8-2] is denied.

dl) @f [For further detail see attached Memorandum Opinion and Order.]

No notices required, advised in open court. 4
No notices required. eurtber of tices

| Notices mailed by judge's staf. : OCT 31
Notified counsel by telephone. dae d + £003

Docketing to mail notices,
Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge. 10/30/21
70:9 Hd Ce 130 €0 /2001
courtroom oy date mailed notice
~ deputy’s Gi papi SUD tS nom
initials vite
~ ESS Dateltime received in ;
central Clerk's Office ning: inal


nothing to indicate that any paper documents are voluminous nor
is there anything to indicate that a substantial number of bank
employees will need to be deposed. Busey Bank does not identify
any particular witnesses that will need to be deposed or testify
at trial. Any possibility that a needed trial witness will bea
former employee not subject to being subpoenaed in the Northern
District of Illinois is purely speculative. No showing has been
made that the private interests even favor a transfer to the
Central District, let alone that they clearly favor such a
transfer.

There is also no showing that the public interests favor
a transfer. There is nothing to indicate that there is any
greater experience with FCRA cases in the Central District than
in the Northern District.? According to 2002 court management
statistics provided on the Judiciary's website (http://
156.119.80.10/Statistics/Federal_Court_Management_Statistics/
cmsd2002.html}, the average time from filing to disposition of
civil cases is 5.5 months in the Northern District and 7.5 months
in the Central District. For both districts, the average time

from a civil case filing to trial is 26.0 months. These

Plaintiff speculates that, being located in a large
metropolitan area with a number of financial service companies
and Trans Union's headquarters, the Northern District would have
more experience with FCRA cases than the Central District.
Plaintiff, however, does not point to any statistics supporting
that speculation.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

DANIEL TATAR,
Plaintiff,
Vv. No. 03 C 5033

TRANS UNION L.L.C., BUSEY BANK,
URBANA, and AT&T DIRECT BILLED
CARD,

Ly
Oy Meng

1 20;

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case involves alleged misreporting of credit
information regarding plaintiff Daniel Tatar. One named
defendant is Busey Bank,* where plaintiff had an account that he
allegedly closed and paid in full in 1999, but for which negative
credit information was thereafter reported. According to
information provided by Busey Bank, the account was an overdrawn
checking account which plaintiff paid in full shortly after the
account was closed in 1999. Another named defendant is AT&T
Corp.? Plaintiff alleges he never had an AT&T Direct Billed

Card, but negative credit information about such a card has been

*Plaintiff misnamed this defendant as Busey Bank Urbana. \

*Plaintiff misnamed this defendant as AT&T Direct Billed
Card.


reported. The other named defendant is Trans Union, L.L.C., a
credit reporting agency which has reported the allegedly
incorrect information that was provided by the other two
defendants.

The complaint contains four counts. Count One is a claim
that Trans Union violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA")
in that it failed to properly investigate and correct the
erroneously reported information after being informed by
plaintiff, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681li(a)-(c). Count Two
is a state law defamation claim against Trans Union based on the
allegedly erroneous credit reports. Count III is an FCRA claim
against Busey Bank alleging that it violated 15 U.S.C.

§ 1681s(2) (b) by failing to adequately investigate and correct
the allegedly erroneous report regarding the account at Busey
Bank. Count Four is an FCRA claim against AT&T alleging that it
violated 15 U.S.C. § 16818(2) (b) by failing to adequately
investigate and correct the allegedly erroneous report regarding
the Direct Billed Card.

Busey Bank is located in Champaign County, Illinois.
Busey Bank moves to transfer the case to the Central District of
Illinois, primarily based on the fact that it is located there
and any records about the account are located there. AT&T has
joined in the motion. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Trans Union

has not taken a position on the motion.