MEMORANDUM

LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, District Judge.

A former railroad employee filed this Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) action to recover for damages allegedly sustained while working for Norfolk Southern. The alleged accident occurred in southern Ohio. The plaintiff resides in southern Ohio. Almost every potential witness in the case resides in southern Ohio. The defendant moves to transfer the case to the Southern District of Ohio. I will grant the defendant's unopposed motion and transfer the action.1

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Charles Peach is a former machine operator of Defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company. On August 17, 2011, the plaintiff claims he was injured while operating a ballast regulator machine on railroad tracks in Lucasville, OH.2 He sustained serious injuries to his neck, shoulders, hands, and arms.3 The plaintiff claims his injuries were the result of the defendant's negligence. He estimates his medical expenses, lost earnings, and other damages to be in excess of $50,000.4

In January 2014, the plaintiff filed his complaint in this district, under FELA. The plaintiff currently resides in Wheelersburg, OH. Norfolk Southern is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in Norfolk, Virginia. The only connection that this case has to this district is that plaintiff's counsel is here.5

Several Norfolk Southern employees witnessed the accident: Justin Lore, Randy Campbell, and Jim Lore.6 Other employees of the defendant based out of Chillcothe, Ohio investigated the accident: James Rowen, Marcus Preecher, and Don Krupp, Jr. Justin Lore, Campbell, Rowen, and Preecher continue to work for Norfolk Southern at its Chillocothe, OH site.7 Jim Lore and Krupp have since retired from Norfolk Southern. All of these employees, except Krupp, continue to live in southern Ohio.8 The ballast regulator machine the plaintiff was operating when he was allegedly injured is located in Chillocothe, OH.

The plaintiff is currently being treated by several medical providers: Ismail Nabeel, M.D.; Gregory Balturshot, M.D., James Mullins, M.D., and Mark Fulton, M.D. of Central Ohio Neurological Surgeons; and Leon Rosenberg, M.D.9 All of these providers are located in central or southern Ohio.10

II. DISCUSSION11

The defendant moves to transfer the action to the Southern District of Ohio, arguing forum non conveniens pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Under FELA, an action may be brought in a district: 1) in which the defendant resides, 2) where the cause of action arose, or 3) where the defendant is doing business at the commencement of the action. 45 U.S.C. § 56. Norfolk Southern is not a Pennsylvania corporation nor is headquartered in the district. A substantial part of the events, acts, and/or omissions giving rise to this action did not occur in this district. The defendant, however, was doing business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at the time the suit was brought.12 Venue is proper here for that reason.

"For 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." 28 U.S.C. §1404(a).13 The movant bears the burden of establishing that a transfer is warranted. Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995)(citations omitted). Ordinarily there is a strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum; however, when the plaintiff is not from that forum, this presumption holds less weight. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 (1981).14 The FELA choice-of-venue provision does not prevent a court from transferring a case under §1404(a). See, e.g., Dynka v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Corp., No. 09-4854, 2010 WL 2490683, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 15, 2010)(citing Ex parte Collett, 337 U.S. 55, 60 (1949)).15 District courts have the discretion to decide motions to transfer venue on a case-by-case basis. Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988).

In deciding whether to transfer a case, a court must balance the private and public interests protected by § 1404(a). Id. The private interests include the parties' preferences, whether the claim arose elsewhere, the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the location of relevant books and records. Id. Public interests include: the enforceability of the judgment; practical considerations making trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; the efficiency of the relative courts in terms of case congestion; local interest in deciding local controversies at home; the public policies of the fora; and the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law. Id. at 879-80 (internal citations omitted).

Both the private and public factors weigh in favor of transfer to the Southern District of Ohio. The underlying incident took place in Lucasville, Ohio, which is within that district. The plaintiff resides within that district in Wheelersburg, Ohio. All but one of the potential fact witnesses with information about the alleged accident and subsequent investigation live in the Southern District of Ohio. Jim Lore and Don Krupp, who are former employees of Norfolk Southern, would need to be served with subpoenas from the Southern District of Ohio in order to be deposed. The plaintiff's treating physicians are also located in the Southern District of Ohio. The parties expect a trial to last four to six days. All of these people would need to travel for several days to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which is between 400 and 600 miles away from their respective locations.16 This would impose an unnecessary expense and burden on the witnesses and their families. Norfolk Southern would also have to cover for the workers testifying at trial, for upwards of a week. The Southern District of Ohio is much more convenient for the parties and all the witnesses involved.

In addition, the equipment allegedly causing the accident and the location of the accident are located within the Southern District of Ohio. Both will need to be inspected as part of discovery.17 A judge and jury in Southern Ohio would be much more familiar with the accident site than would be a judge in this district. The plaintiff's medical records and the defendant's records are also in Ohio. Transporting the records to a courthouse in the Southern District of Ohio would be much less burdensome than transporting them to this district. The residents of Ohio also have a stronger interest in adjudicating workplace safety claims at a work site in their area than would residents of Pennsylvania.18

For all practical purposes, transferring the case to the Southern District of Ohio would make trial easier, more efficient, and less expensive for all those involved.19

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I will grant the defendant's motion and transfer this action to the Southern District of Ohio.20

An appropriate Order follows.