PHILIP R. MARTINEZ, District Judge.
On this day, the Court considered Defendant Trican Well Service, L.P.'s "Motion to Transfer Venue" (ECF No. 4) [hereinafter "Motion"], filed on December 5, 2014; and Plaintiff Allen E. Coleman's "Response to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue" (ECF No. 7) [hereinafter "Response"], filed on December 12, 2014, in the above-captioned cause. After due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be granted, and the above-captioned cause should be transferred to the Midland Division of the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), for the reasons that follow.
On November 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed his "Complaint" (ECF No. 1) in the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, his former employer, discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Compl. 1. Defendant is a corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas. Id. Plaintiff worked for Defendant in its Odessa, Texas facility as a mechanic from December 5, 2011 until his termination in January, 2014. Id. 3. Defendant's Odessa, Texas facility is located in Ector County, Texas. Mot. Ex. A, at 2. Plaintiff is a resident of El Paso County, Texas.
In its Motion, Defendant argues that this case should be transferred to the Midland Division of the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Mot. 1. In support of its Motion, Defendant notes the following facts: (1) all of the events that form the basis for Plaintiff's allegations occurred in Ector County, Texas; (2) all of Defendant's allegedly unlawful practices occurred in Ector County, Texas; (3) all of the key witnesses reside in Ector County, Texas; and (4) Ector County, Texas is in the Midland Division of the Western District of Texas. Id. 2, 4. Plaintiff opposes the transfer and asserts inter alia (1) that his choice of forum is entitled to deference and (2) that Defendant "has not carried its burden" to establish that the Midland Division is clearly more convenient than the forum chosen by Plaintiff. Resp. 1, 4.
Section 1404(a) of Title 28 provides that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." District courts have "broad discretion in deciding whether to order a transfer" pursuant to § 1404(a). Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1067 (5th Cir.1998) (quoting Caldwell v. Palmetto State Sav. Bank, 811 F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir.1987)). However, "[w]hen the movant demonstrates that the transferee venue is clearly more convenient" than the venue chosen by the plaintiff, "it has shown good cause and the district court should grant the transfer." In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc. (Volkswagen II), 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir.2008).
Id. (alteration in original) (citations omitted) (quoting Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203). These factors, although appropriate in most cases, "are not necessarily exhaustive or exclusive." Id. Moreover, none of the factors "can be said to be of dispositive weight." Id. (quoting Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir.2004) (internal quotation mark omitted)).
Pursuant to the § 1404(a) framework, the Court must first determine whether the suit could have been brought in the Midland Division. Title VII contains a special venue provision which provides that "an action may be brought in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Plaintiff alleges that he faced discrimination on the basis of race at his workplace. Compl. 2. He also alleges that Defendant retaliated against him and ultimately discharged him for filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Id. 4. The alleged discrimination and retaliation occurred at Defendant's Odessa facility, located in Ector County, Texas. Mot. 7-8. Pursuant to Title VII's venue provision, venue is proper in any district in the state of Texas because the unlawful employment practices — discrimination and retaliation — occurred in Texas. Accordingly, both the Midland and the El Paso Divisions of the Western District of Texas are proper venues for this suit. Because Plaintiff could have filed his Complaint in the Midland Division, the Court will now determine whether Defendant has carried its burden to show that the Midland Division is a more convenient forum.
Before turning to the public and private interest factors, the Court will consider Plaintiff's argument that his choice of forum is entitled to deference. Resp. 4. Plaintiff asserts that a plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to deference, especially where a plaintiff brings a civil rights complaint. Id.
In general, a party seeking a transfer must show good cause. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 324. As the Fifth Circuit
Plaintiff claims, however, that the broad venue provision of Title VII was enacted "to allow plaintiffs to assert venue outside the district where they experienced discrimination, where they may be most likely to face hostile courts or juries."
Moreover, Title VII's special venue provision makes a specific reference to § 1404, thus confirming its applicability in Title VII actions. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) ("For purposes of sections 1404 and 1406 of Title 28, the judicial district in which the respondent has his principal office shall in all cases be considered a district in which the action might have been brought."). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's choice of forum, in the context of Fifth Circuit precedent, is not entitled to greater deference merely because Plaintiff brings a civil rights complaint.
Turning to the private interest factors, the first factor to consider is the relative ease of access to sources of proof, specifically documents and records. See Optimum Power Solutions LLC v. Apple, Inc., 794 F.Supp.2d 696, 701 (E.D.Tex. 2011) ("Courts analyze this factor in light of the distance that documents, or other evidence, must be transported from their existing location to the trial venue."). Defendant asserts that it keeps its personnel files in Houston, Texas and that any other relevant records, to the extent that they exist, would be located in Odessa, Texas. Mot. 8. Thus, according to Defendant, "[t]he physical location and sheer distance of these records militates against maintaining venue in the El Paso Division." Id.
In contrast, Plaintiff claims that the location of records in Houston, Texas does not lend support to transferring the case to the Midland Division. Resp. 8. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant's statement regarding the possibility of additional records
In considering this factor, it is undisputed that Defendant's personnel records are located in Houston Texas. It is also undisputed that the EEOC investigative records are located in El Paso, Texas.
It is noteworthy that records relating to Plaintiff's employment that may be located in Houston, Texas are a long distance from both the Midland and El Paso Divisions. Given the fact that most records of significance are outside of the El Paso Division and that personnel records may be located Odessa, Texas, Plaintiff's former duty station, the Court concludes that this factor weighs in favor of granting the pending motion.
Plaintiff asserts, however, that even if the location of the employment records does point in favor of transfer, the location of the records should be given less weight "where the only evidence in question is paper or electronic records." Id. Plaintiff cites to case law stating that this factor "should weigh only slightly" in a court's transfer analysis given "advances in copying technology and information storage." Id. (citing Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp., 90 F.Supp.2d 757, 778 (E.D.Tex. 2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the Fifth Circuit, having considered a similar argument, stated: "That access to some sources of proof presents a lesser inconvenience now than it might have absent recent development does not render this factor superfluous." Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316. The Fifth Circuit has also found this factor particularly relevant in the context of Title VII cases. See In re Horseshoe Entm't, 337 F.3d at 434 ("Where relevant employment records are maintained and administered is expressly stated as a venue factor in [Title VII's] special venue statute and should be weighed by a District Court in
The second factor to consider is the cost of attendance for willing witnesses. According to Defendant, five key witnesses work and reside in Odessa, Texas, which is 267 miles from El Paso, Texas. Mot. 4. These particular witnesses are Defendant's employees who either informed Plaintiff about the reasons for his termination, were present at the meeting where Plaintiff was terminated, or witnessed Plaintiff's allegedly insubordinate behavior. Id. 6-7. Two other potential key witnesses, who were identified by Plaintiff in his Complaint, work for Defendant in Houston, Texas. Id. 7.
On the other hand, Plaintiff asserts that he is a key witness, and he resides in El Paso, Texas. Resp. 6. Plaintiff also identifies his wife as a witness regarding "the effect that the discrimination and the termination had" on Plaintiff; she also resides in El Paso, Texas. Id. Ex. A.
"When the distance between an existing venue for trial of a matter and a proposed venue under § 1404(a) is more than 100 miles, the factor of inconvenience to witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional distance to be traveled." Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 204-05. The distance between the El Paso Division and the Midland Division is well over 200 miles. Most of the witnesses that Defendant and Plaintiff have identified live or work in Ector County, Texas, with the exception of Plaintiff, his wife, and the two witnesses from Houston, Texas. Regardless of where the trial is held, some witnesses will potentially have to miss work and spend money on travel and overnight accommodations. Plaintiff argues that because "witnesses reside in both divisions, the convenience of witnesses is a neutral consideration in this case." Resp. 7. Plaintiff also adds that "[a] court should not transfer a case if the `only practical effect is to shift inconvenience from the moving party to the nonmoving party." Id. 9 (citation omitted).
Plaintiff correctly notes that he and his wife would be inconvenienced by having to travel to the Midland Division, purchase overnight accommodations, and miss work.
However, the proper consideration for this factor is not which party will be more inconvenienced — it is the cost of attendance for willing witnesses. If the case is not transferred, at least five witnesses will
The third factor to consider is the availability of compulsory process to secure witnesses. This factor applies only to non-party witnesses. Vargas v. Seamar Divers Intern., LLC, No. 2:10-CV-178-TJW, 2011 WL 1980001, at *5 (E.D.Tex. May 20, 2011). Moreover, for purposes of this factor, current employees of a party "should be considered party witnesses because they can be presumed to appear willingly on behalf of their party employer." Id.; see also Dupre v. Spanier Marine Corp., 810 F.Supp. 823, 825 (S.D.Tex. 1993) ("[When] key witnesses are the employees of the moving party.... the moving party can compel those witnesses to attend the trial."). Most of the potential witnesses who have been identified are party witnesses because they work for Defendant, and thus, they can be presumed to appear willingly on behalf of their employer. Although Plaintiff's wife is technically a non-party witness, she can also be presumed to appear willingly. Thus, the Court concludes that this factor is neutral and in equipoise to the Court's determination of the pending motion.
Finally, the Court must consider all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Plaintiff argues that the Court should take into consideration the "relative financial strengths of the parties." Resp. 8. Specifically, Plaintiff states that he is an "individual hourly wage-earner" whereas Defendant is a multinational corporation that does business on six continents and makes millions of dollars in profit. Id. 8-9. Similarly, Defendant asserts that it will incur substantial costs if several of its employees must travel to El Paso, Texas for trial. Mot. Ex. A, at 3. Thus, both parties claim that the other's choice of forum will cause financial hardship. Given the current pleadings before the Court, it is unable to determine the relative financial hardship each party will bear.
Defendant argues that at least two of the public interest factors also point in favor of transfer.
Defendant also argues that the second factor, local interest in adjudicating local disputes, weighs in favor of transfer to Midland. According to Defendant, "[b]ecause the principal claims asserted by Plaintiff did not arise in the geographic area served by the El Paso Division, there is no local interest in having this case decided here." Mot. 9-10. In contrast, Plaintiff argues that "in the context of Title VII litigation, Congress made the specific decision to permit discrimination victims to sue in any district within the state where discrimination occurred." Resp. 7. According to Plaintiff, "this Congressional determination overrides any possible `local interest' in having a Title VII case decided in the same district as the discrimination." Id. Or, at the very least, Plaintiff argues that the Court should give less weight to this factor. Id.
The Court finds that the local interest in adjudicating local disputes is implicated here. The Midland Division has an interest in adjudicating a dispute between an employer located within its boundaries and its workers. The Court understands that this interest might be somewhat tempered by Congress's enactment of Title VII's broad venue provision. However, while Congress may have enacted a broad venue provision for Title VII claims, Congress kept in place § 1404's transfer provision. Indeed, Congress specifically referenced § 1404 in Title VII's venue provision. See In re Horseshoe Entm't, 337 F.3d at 432 ("We note that the last sentence of this special venue provision makes express cross-reference to §§ 1404 and 1406 of Title 28 indicating clearly Congress' intention that the provisions of §§ 1404 and 1406 would also be applicable in this case."). This factor is thus still one that courts consider, even in civil rights cases, and, in this case, it favors transfer to the Midland Division.
In sum, although not all of the private and public interest factors are implicated, those that are implicated point in favor of transfer to the Midland Division. The only real connection that this case has to the El Paso Division is Plaintiff's residence in El Paso County and the fact that the EEOC office where Plaintiff filed his claim is located in El Paso County. Given the Midland Division's stronger ties to this case, the Court finds that Defendant has carried its burden to establish that the Midland Division is a clearly more convenient forum. Finally, the Court notes that it is not offensive that litigation arising from an employment relationship be conducted in the location where the parties voluntarily entered into the relationship and where the duty station was located. For all the reasons set forth herein, the Court concludes that Defendant's Motion should be granted.
