JULIE A. ROBINSON, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Venture Corporation's Motion to Designate Wichita as Place for Trial (Doc. 77). The motion is fully briefed, and the Court is prepared to rule. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is granted.
This is a diversity case arising from Plaintiff Mark LeTourneau's October 2012 motorcycle accident in a construction zone on U. S. Highway 281 in Barton County, Kansas, near Great Bend. Plaintiffs Mark and Deborah LeTourneau are residents of Temecula, California and originally filed this case in the U. S. District Court for the Central District of California.
On February 26, 2015, the California court found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Venture Corporation and transferred the case to the District of Kansas.
After the case was transferred to this Court in February 2015, Plaintiffs never filed a designation of place of trial as required by Local Rule 40.2(a). Defendant Venture Corp. did file a designation on March 5, 2015, requesting that trial be held in Wichita.
In an Order dated April 3, 2015, this Court denied Defendant's motion for reassignment and transfer, stating:
Defendant renewed its request to have the trial in Wichita at the pretrial conference before Magistrate Judge Rushfelt on March 28, 2017. Judge Rushfelt did not resolve the issue, but noted in his Pretrial Order that Defendant had designated Wichita as the place for trial.
On November 27, 2017, Defendant filed another Motion to Designate Wichita as Place for Trial.
Defendant moves to designate Wichita as the place of trial pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 40.2(e). While a plaintiff's request governs the place of trial unless the court orders otherwise,
The factors considered by the court when conducting a § 1404(a) analysis include "the plaintiff's choice of forum, the convenience for witnesses, the accessibility of witnesses and other sources of proof, the possibility of obtaining a fair trial, difficulties that may arise from congested dockets, and `all other considerations of a practical nature that make a trial easy, expeditious and economical.'"
While a plaintiff's choice of forum "should rarely be disturbed,"
In deciding a motion to transfer under § 1404(a), the relative convenience of the forum is "a primary, if not the most important, factor to consider."
The parties in this case make no arguments concerning a difference between Kansas City and Wichita with respect to the possibility of obtaining a fair trial or any difficulties that might arise from congested dockets. Thus, the Court will focus its analysis on Plaintiffs' choice of forum and the convenience and accessibility of the witnesses and other sources of proof.
Plaintiffs contend that their "preference" for Kansas City weighs in favor of holding the trial in Kansas City. Plaintiffs explain that they did not file a designation of place of trial because this case was originally filed in California and, "[h]ad the case not been transferred, the place of trial would have been California."
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs, unlike Defendant, never filed a designation of place of trial. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs' choice of forum was California—not Kansas City—and that in any event, Plaintiffs' choice of forum is entitled to little deference because Plaintiffs are not residents. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs' arguments and agrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs' choice of forum should receive little deference because Plaintiffs are not residents of their preferred forum and—as set forth more fully below—this case has no meaningful connection Kansas City.
Defendant argues that the trial of this matter should take place in Wichita because Wichita is, on balance, the most economic and convenient location. Defendant is headquartered in Great Bend, near where the accident occurred in Barton County, and Defendant asserts that most of the witnesses are located in Great Bend or Wichita. More specifically, Defendant contends that it needs to call twelve witnesses to testify in person at trial, nine of which live and/or work in Great Bend and two of which live in Wichita. These witnesses are Defendant's representatives, KDOT witnesses, law enforcement officers, and first responders (the twelfth anticipated defense witness is an expert located in Topeka). Defendant further argues that Plaintiffs, their lay witness (who was with Mark LeTourneau at the time of his accident), and Plaintiffs' four expert witnesses will be required to travel for trial regardless of whether it is held in Wichita or Kansas City, as they are all located in either California or Michigan. Defendant argues that no witness or evidence is located in Kansas City, and that this case has no connection to Kansas City whatsoever.
Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has not met its burden to show that the current trial location, Kansas City, is substantially inconvenient. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant need not call many out-of-town witnesses to testify in person at trial given the parties' stipulation in the Pretrial Order
Plaintiffs contend that the most important issue here is the availability of flight and hotel accommodations for themselves and their out-of-state witnesses. Although they do not explain their objection to Wichita's lodging options, they do state that the Wichita airport offers a more limited flight schedule and only six commercial airline options, compared to nine carriers operating at the Kansas City airport. Plaintiffs state that their witnesses will be less likely to find direct flights to Wichita, that flights to Wichita will be more expensive, and that witnesses may be forced to spend an additional night in Wichita if a return flight cannot be had on the same date that testimony concludes.
In its reply brief, Defendant counters that despite the parties' stipulation as to the admissibility of certain exhibits, it still intends to call nine witnesses from Great Bend and two from Wichita to testify in person at trial. Defendant further argues that it may need to call medical providers who live in Wichita for rebuttal or impeachment purposes. Defendant states that contrary to Plaintiffs' assertion, Wichita offers more than adequate travel accommodations for witnesses traveling from out of state, including a virtually new airport with several major airlines, 8,000 hotel rooms, and 1,000 restaurants. Defendant points out that these witnesses will be traveling from long distances regardless of the trial location, and that Plaintiffs provide no support for their assertion that travel options for Wichita would be insufficient or more costly compared to Kansas City.
On balance, and giving little deference to Plaintiffs' choice of forum given that they are not residents (and never filed a designation of place of trial), the Court finds that the § 1404(a) factors favor transfer to Wichita for trial. Although the parties have not provided the Court with their Rule 26 disclosures, their briefing collectively identifies nineteen specific witnesses who will testify at trial and whose convenience and accessibility must be considered. Of these, nine are in Great Bend (an eight-hour round trip to Kansas City versus a four-hour round trip to Wichita), two are in Wichita (a six-hour round trip to Kansas City versus no travel required), one is in Topeka, and the remaining seven will be traveling by air from out-of-state regardless of whether the trial takes place in Wichita or Kansas City.
Although it is possible that Plaintiffs are correct that flights to Wichita would be more expensive, a comparison of flight options for witnesses traveling from California and Michigan to Wichita or Kansas City, respectively, cannot be done without additional information about which airports in California and Michigan those witnesses would be using. Plaintiffs provide no estimates of how much longer travel would take or what the additional costs would be. Further, this Court recently found in a similar case that where the majority of the witnesses lived in Wichita, and the non-resident plaintiff and her experts would be required to travel from out of state regardless, Wichita was a more convenient trial location under § 1404(a).
While holding the trial in Wichita will still require some travel for witnesses residing in Great Bend, Kansas City would be substantially inconvenient for these witnesses compared to Wichita. Although some of Plaintiffs' out-of-state witnesses may be required to spend an extra night in Wichita if their testimony concludes after the last departing flight, the same could easily happen were trial to be held in Kansas City. Further, were the trial to be held in Kansas City, witnesses who reside in Wichita and Great Bend could likewise face additional time away from home and work that could otherwise be avoided. Under § 1404(a) and this Court's precedent, Wichita is a more convenient trial location because out-of-state witnesses will incur travel costs regardless of whether the trial is in Wichita or Kansas City, whereas Wichita will be substantially more convenient for witnesses travelling by car from within the state.
The Court notes that although Wichita is the more convenient and appropriate trial location under § 1404(a), holding the trial there may require a change to the current trial date of August 6, 2018 to accommodate the Court's schedule. Chambers staff will be in touch with counsel regarding scheduling.
