Opinion ID: 1343045
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: All Other Practical Problems

Text: As to the fifth and final private interest in Tsapis, 184 W.Va. at 234, 400 S.E.2d at 242,  `all other practical problems that make a trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive,'  [14] the circuit court concluded Cannelton would incur little additional expense by litigating this action in Michigan because Cannelton already has retained counsel in Michigan and Cannelton's lead counsel is admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Additionally, the court said significant costs will be saved by avoiding hearing motions and attending conferences in West Virginia while conducting discovery in Michigan and Ontario. (Emphasis in original). Cannelton contends there is no evidence in the record to support the circuit court's conclusion that it will incur little additional expense[.] In fact, Cannelton asserts it will be much more expensive for it to get its witnesses and counsel to Michigan and to transport and store its documents in Michigan. It may well be that it is more expensive for Cannelton to litigate this matter in Michigan. However, we view this factor in relation to all the parties, not merely Cannelton. As previously discussed, regardless of where this action ultimately is decided, witnesses will need to travel and documents will need to be transported. Moreover, the expense of the action is not the only criteria under this private interest. The two other criteria are how easy and how expeditiously a trial can proceed. We certainly find it arguable that Michigan would be an easier and more expeditious forum to handle this matter in light of the fact there are two interrelated actions involvedone involving the clean-up of the property and the other being who is going to pay for the clean-up of the property. Consequently, we conclude the circuit court generally did not abuse its discretion by finding this interest favors Michigan.