Ohio State Univ. Moritz College of Law Civil Clinic v. CBP, No. 14-2329, 2015 WL 1928736 (S. D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2015) (Frost, J.)
Re: Request for records concerning practices and procedures used at defendant's Sandusky Bay, Ohio location
Disposition: Granting defendant's motion to transfer venue
- Litigation Considerations, Venue and Removal: "[T]he Court grants Defendant's motion to transfer venue . . . and transfers this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio." The court first explains that "[t]he parties agree that the threshold issue under § 1404(a) is satisfied in this case" and finds that "[b]ecause FOIA's venue provision would have permitted Plaintiffs to bring this case in the Northern District of Ohio, . . . the Court agrees with the parties and proceeds to analyze the remaining factors of § 1404(a)." "[T]he Court agrees with Defendant that the parties' interests weigh in favor of transfer." "Two of the three parties to this litigation, as well as the documents responsive to Plaintiffs' FOIA request, are located in the Northern District of Ohio." "Moreover, because the documents sought in Plaintiffs' FOIA request contain potentially sensitive information, in camera review is a distinct possibility" and not allowing the transfer "could create unnecessary practical issues." Also, while "the Court agrees that Plaintiffs' choice of venue is entitled to substantial weight . . . that fact is not dispositive." "That fact is especially unconvincing in this case given that Plaintiff's residence in the Southern District of Ohio appears to be the only connection between this forum and the subject matter of the litigation." Finally, the court finds that the Northern District of Ohio "is better equipped to interpret [a] protective order" which potentially affects documents at issue and "also is better equipped to determine whether Plaintiffs are using their FOIA request to serve the public interest."