Opinion ID: 203939
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Public and Private Interest Factors

Text: We turn to the second requirement and analyze whether the district court abused its discretion in applying the private and public interest factors as set forth in Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508-09, 67 S.Ct. 839, recognizing that the list of factors is illustrative rather than all-inclusive. Iragorri, 203 F.3d at 12.

With respect to the ease of access to sources of proof, the district court stated that although the parties dispute whether the contract was formed in Massachusetts, it is undisputed that Hananel's performance pursuant to the contract occurred in Israel. The district court explained as follows: [Hananel] was in charge of the IPI office in Israel. He searched for investment opportunities in Israel on IPI's behalf. He received his pay in Israel. He spent IPI's funds in Israel. He was not summoned to the IPI headquarters in Needham to report on his activities in Israel; indeed, he never returned to the Needham office after the December 5, 1995, meeting, although he did return to the United States once or twice. In addition, the district court noted that Hananel was almost always in Israel both when he was working for IPI and when he was speaking with Adelson, who supervised him from both the United States and Israel; that Hananel's alleged breaches of the contract occurred in Israel; the affiants upon which IPI relied to develop its affidavits during the pretrial litigation phase in Israel are all Israeli witnesses testifying to events that occurred in Israel; the related documents which include credit card receipts and internal corporate documents and would need to be translated into English are located in Israel; and that Hananel anticipates calling twenty-nine Israeli witnesses. Given these factors, the district court concluded as follows: On balance, the factor concerning access to sources of proof substantially favors the Israeli forum. The locus of the alleged misconduct is in Israel. The majority of the witnesses are in Israel. The most significant testimony on behalf of each party comes from Israel (i.e., the testimony of Israeli-based witnesses regarding Hananel's actions in Israel). While IPI's evidence suggests that the contract was formed in Massachusetts, other evidence clearly establishes that many of the terms were negotiated in Israel. In addition, the Parties' subsequent course of conductmuch of which occurred in Israelmay bear upon the terms of the Parties' relationship given the oral nature of the contract and the heated disputes over the terms of the contract. Moreover, the presentation of evidence in the bilingual courts of Israel is simpler for the Parties than our English-only court. IPI disagrees with the district court's conclusion that the availability of witnesses and documents strongly favor dismissal. IPI argues that there is little reason to believe that Hananel would even benefit from the proffered testimony from the witnesses he intends to call. IPI maintains that the record simply does not show that the proposed Israeli witnesses are even relevant, let alone so critical to Hananel's defense that proceeding in the United States would cause `manifest injustice.' With respect to the documents, IPI challenges the district court's conclusion that many of the documents created and maintained in Israel are in Hebrew, pointing out that the district court did not identify any such documents. IPI's arguments are unavailing. Consistent with our case law, the fact that the events relating to Hananel's alleged misconduct occurred in Israel weighs heavily in favor of the foreign forum. See Howe v. Goldcorp Invest., Ltd., 946 F.2d 944, 951 (1st Cir.1991) (holding that the balance of conveniences favor with unusual strength the Canadian defendants seeking a Canadian forum because [t]he relevant events surrounding both plaintiff's `misrepresentation' and `breach of fiduciary duty' claims took place in Canada, not in the United States); see also Piper, 454 U.S. at 257-58, 102 S.Ct. 252 (holding that because [a] large proportion of the relevant evidence is located in Great Britain it was not unreasonable for the district court to conclude that fewer evidentiary problems would be posed if the trial were held in Scotland). Furthermore, we disagree with IPI's claims that the district court abused its discretion with respect to its treatment of the relevance and identity of Hananel's witnesses. As a preliminary matter, we have noted, there is no `blanket rule' that a defendant affirmatively demonstrate, by affidavit, the unavailability of a foreign witness and the significance of the witness's testimony. Mercier v. Sheraton Int'l, Inc. (Mercier II), 981 F.2d 1345, 1356 (1st Cir.1992). Regardless of the existence of such a rule, and contrary to IPI's assertions otherwise, Hananel has adequately identified the twenty-nine witnesses he intends to call in the proceedings below, and has indicated the relevance of at least ten Israeli witnesses. The district court noted that the record contains affidavits from those ten Israeli witnesses, each of whom would testify regarding Adelson's knowledge of Hananel's activities in Israel ... or regarding various facts disputing the allegations of misconduct asserted by IPI. In view of the discretion and flexibility we afford to the district court in conducting its forum non conveniens analysis, we will not second-guess its judgment where there is strong record support for its considered conclusion. As we have remarked, [t]he trial judge is in the best position to know the interstices of any particular case and to evaluate both the parties' interests and the likely efficacy of the truth-finding process. Iragorri, 203 F.3d at 16 (citing Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508, 67 S.Ct. 839). Consequently, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that testimony from Hananel's Israeli witnesses was relevant and weighed in favor of the Israeli forum. [10]
IPI does not challenge the district court's conclusion that Hananel would be unable to compel any of his witnesses to appear in the United States and that live in-person testimony is preferable to video testimony or live videoconferencing testimony. We have stated that the ability to produce live testimony can weigh strongly in favor of a particular forum. See Iragorri, 203 F.3d at 15 (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering private interest factors in case where neither witness could be compelled to attend trial in Maine); Mercier II, 981 F.2d at 1356 (noting that the fact-finder's opportunity to evaluate ... credibility on the basis of in-person testimony could be crucial to a reliable resolution of these factual disputes and that deposition testimony and letters rogatory, even if available to the American court, would be less than satisfactory substitutes for in-person testimony); Howe, 946 F.2d at 952 (Compulsory process would seem especially important where, as here, fraud and subjective intent are elements of the claim, making the live testimony of witnesses for the purposes of presenting demeanor evidence essential to a fair trial.). Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in weighing this factor. [11]

The district court concluded that judicial economy is poorly served by repeating in this forum the discovery the Parties completed in Israel. IPI disagrees with this conclusion and argues that the evidentiary discovery that the parties conducted in Israel could easily be transferred to Massachusetts, allowing this case to proceed without protracted discovery. However, as the district court correctly noted, discovery rules in the United States differ from those that govern in Israel and [f]urther pretrial proceedings would need to occur here even though all pretrial proceedings were complete in Israel. Once again, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in finding that this factor weighed in favor of the Israeli forum. The district court best appreciates [a] case's nuances and the parties' circumstances, Iragorri, 203 F.3d at 13, and, hence, it is in the best position to decide whether discovery would be unnecessarily duplicative and if the goals of judicial efficiency would favor a particular forum. [12] Here, that determination was reasonable.
The district court acknowledged that if the contract between Hananel and IPI was formed in Massachusetts, the state has an interest in enforcing business transactions consummated within its boundaries. However, the district court also cited to undisputed evidence in the record that the parties contemplated that aspects of the employment relationship would be subject to Israeli labor law and that the terms of the contract were negotiated in Israel. IPI argues that the district court erred, contending that Massachusetts law should govern the contract and that Massachusetts has an interest in enforcing local contracts. [13] Although admittedly this is a closer issue, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying this factor as this case has a great deal to do with [Israel]. Howe, 946 F.2d at 953. The events surrounding Hananel's alleged breach occurred in Israel and evidence exists that Israeli law governs aspects of the employment relationship. [14] See id. (noting that plaintiff's claims implicate duties the defendants owed to the corporation and its shareholders under Canadian law and that at least some significant portion of the adjudication of [the defendant's] case will involve tasks most easily and appropriately handled by a Canadian court: interpreting primarily Canadian law and applying it to matters principally of concern to Canada and Canadians). Although the district court correctly acknowledged that federal courts, if necessary, are capable of interpreting Israeli law, here, the district court did not err in concluding that Israel is the preferable forum given Israel's stronger connection to the instant case. See Mercier II, 981 F.2d at 1355 (concluding in case where performance of contract and alleged breach of contract at issue occurred in Turkey that district court may consider any attenuated connection between the particular United States forum and the matter in litigation); Howe, 946 F.2d at 952-53 (noting in its balancing of factors the weak connection of Massachusetts or any other United States jurisdiction to the securities fraud at issue in its case). In any event, even if these public interest factors do not as decisively favor the Israeli forum as do the private interest factors, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion because it reasonably concluded that an overall balancing of both private and public interest factors strongly favored Israel as the more convenient and judicially efficient forum.