Opinion ID: 174852
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Accessibility of Witnesses and Sources of Proof

Text: The accessibility of witnesses and sources of proof weighs against transfer. The convenience of witnesses is the most important factor in deciding a motion under § 1404(a). Cook, 816 F.Supp. at 669; see also Palace Exploration Co., 316 F.3d at 1121-22 (limiting its consideration of the § 1404(a) factors to the location of the witnesses). To demonstrate inconvenience, the movant must (1) identify the witnesses and their locations; (2) indicate the quality or materiality of the[ir] testimony; and (3) show[] that any such witnesses were unwilling to come to trial... [,] that deposition testimony would be unsatisfactory[,] or that the use of compulsory process would be necessary. Scheidt, 956 F.2d at 966 (brackets omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 15 Wright, Miller & Cooper, supra note 13, § 3851, at 227-28 (If the moving party merely has made a general allegation that necessary witnesses are located in the transferee forum, ... the application for transferring the case should be denied....); 17 Moore, supra, § 111.13[f][v] (The materiality of the prospective witnesses [sic] testimony, and not merely the number of prospective witnesses, will determine the extent to which their convenience will be weighed. (citation omitted)). Although Bartile alleges that the majority of potential witnesses are Utah residents and are subject to compulsory process, it has neither identified those witnesses with specificity nor indicated the subject matter of their testimony.