Cree represents that it selected this district as the venue for its action against Honeywell in part based on its connection to Wisconsin, where it maintains its largest LED manufacturing facility (Pl.’s Opp’n (dkt. #30) 1, 7), although other tactical reasons, including speed to trial, likely play a role as well.
The court’s weighing of the factors under § 1404(a) “permits a ‘flexible and individualized analysis’ and affords district courts the opportunity to look beyond a narrow or rigid set of considerations in their determinations.” Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader–Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973, 978 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)).
Wis. Nov. 20, 2014) (“While it is true that Neenah is not technically within the boundary of the Western District, [plaintiff] resides in Wisconsin and in close proximity to this District.”) (emphasis added).
Honeywell cites several decisions from this district in support of its argument that the location of its employees and facilities is an appropriate consideration in determining whether transfer is warranted.
Coupled with neutral interests of justice factors, Honeywell’s minimal showing of greater convenience to itself and its witnesses fails to establish that the District of Minnesota is a “clearly more convenient” forum for this action.