Opinion ID: 208674
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Court Congestion

Text: In its order, the district court found that administrative difficulties caused by court congestion weighed against transfer. In explaining this factor, the court cited the parties' opposing statistics regarding the rate of disposition in the two venues. The court stated: Genentech suggests that the most recent Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics indicate that cases in the Northern District of California reach disposition more quickly than cases in the Eastern District of Texas9.7 months from filing to disposition in the Eastern District as opposed to 7.4 months in the Northern District. While this assertion is true when all cases are factored in, the disposition time in cases which actually go to trial is lower in the Eastern District 18.4 monthsthan in the Northern District25.5 months. Sanofi also points to a 2008 patent litigation study, which found that in the twenty most active patent districts in the country, the fifth-ranked Eastern District had a much faster median time-to-trial interval 1.79 yearsthan the sixteenth-ranked Northern District2.87 years. Sanofi-Aventis, 607 F.Supp.2d at 780. Citing the same statistics, the petitioners argue that the district court erred in relying on this factor to disfavor transfer. The petitioners also note that [b]ecause only 2 percent of federal civil actions between 2003 and 2007 were tried, however, the district court's undue emphasis on trials rather than dispositions was inappropriate. The petitioners further contend that [e]ven if the district court's analysis were accepted, the time to trial in the Eastern District of Texas cannot outweigh all of the other factors favoring transfer. If it could, transfer would be permitted only to the latest `rocket docket' district. To the extent that court congestion is relevant, the speed with which a case can come to trial and be resolved may be a factor. See Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325, 1337 (9th Cir.1984) ([T]he real issue is not whether [transfer] will reduce a court's congestion but whether a trial may be speedier in another court because of its less crowded docket.). We do not disturb the district court's suggestion that it could dispose of the case more quickly than if the case was transferred to the Northern District of California. We note that this factor appears to be the most speculative, see Collins v. Am. Auto. Ins. Co., 230 F.2d 416, 419 (2d Cir.1956), and case-disposition statistics may not always tell the whole story. Without attempting to predict how this case would be resolved and which court might resolve it more quickly, we merely note that when, as here, several relevant factors weigh in favor of transfer and others are neutral, then the speed of the transferee district court should not alone outweigh all of those other factors.