3. Availability of evidence in each forum
Regarding the availability of evidence in each forum, the Court finds that this factor is a wash. There is significant evidence and witnesses in both locations.
4. Convenience of the parties
Regarding the final factor -- the convenience of the parties of litigating in the respective forum -- the Court finds that this factor militates in favor of transferring the matter. SRAM is a large international corporation. SRAM employs over five hundred people worldwide and its expected 1996 sales total approximately $ 50,000,000. On the other hand, one of the defendants -- Sun Victory -- is a very small corporation.
It has only five employees. The disruption of business affairs due to the time and cost of distant litigation is far more severe and detrimental to a small corporation than it is to a much larger corporation.
See Wen Products, Inc., 899 F. Supp. at 386. Accordingly, this factor militates in favor of transferring the matter to California.
C. Interests of Justice
The "interests of justice" component concerns the "efficient administration of the court system." Coffey, 796 F.2d at 221. It includes such considerations as the speed at which case will proceed to trial, the feasibility of consolidation, the court's familiarity with applicable law, and the public interest in having a case resolved in a particular forum. Id.; see Reinke v. Boden, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11809, No. 92 C 744, WL 467240 *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 1996).
Here, first, there is no indication that the case will proceed to trial at a quicker pace in the Northern District of Illinois rather than in the Northern District of California.
Next, the bulk of this action involves the application of federal law, accordingly, both courts are familiar with such law. Although SRAM does bring a claim under Illinois law, at this stage of the litigation, the applicability of Illinois law is unclear.
Finally, because the vast majority of the alleged infringing sales -- roughly eighty to ninety percent -- occurred in the state of California, the Court concludes that California has a greater public interest in hearing this case than an Illinois court.
Accordingly, the Court finds that this component militates heavily in favor of transferring this matter to California.
After considering the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice, the Court concludes that this matter should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
Date: FEB 27 1997
JAMES H. ALESIA
United States District Judge