Brooks v. Griffy, No. 22 CV 3250, 2023 WL 6880248 (Pa.Com.Pl. Oct. 18, 2023)

In support of their forum non conveniens transfer request, the defendants submitted affidavits from the driver of the tractor-trailer and the employer’s transportation superintendent stating that the litigation and trial of the case in Lackawanna County would cause them undue burden, hardship and inconvenience by requiring them to travel 62 to 71 miles farther to the Lackawanna County Courthouse, rather than the Montgomery County Courthouse. No affidavits or other materials were submitted to set forth a general statement of what testimony those witnesses would provide and why their testimony was relevant and necessary to the defense.

The Court of Common Pleas determined that, because the defendants failed to furnish a general statement of the proffered testimony of a key witness to the defense, they failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating that a transfer of venue was warranted and, further, failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s chosen forum was oppressive, rather than merely inconvenient, due to the additional travel mileage. Relevant to the court’s determination that the chosen venue was not oppressive was the fact that the inconvenience in pre-trial discovery is alleviated by advanced communications technology such that depositions, initial status conferences, scheduling conferences, the presentation of uncontested motions or petitions, oral arguments on contested motions or petitions and uncontested hearings involving court approval of settlements could all be handled remotely by Zoom technology.