DAVID R. HERNDON, United States District Judge
I. Introduction
This matter comes before the Court on Ford Motor Company's motion to transfer venue (Doc. 5). Because Ford has not sustained its burden as to transfer, the Court denies the motion to transfer.
In October 2000, Carol Ann Russell, as special administrator of the estate of David Starkey, deceased, sued Ford Motor Company ("Ford") in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois for wrongful death under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act, 740 ILCS 180/1 et seq., and for product liability (Doc. 2). This case arises out of the wrongful death of David Starkey, a minor, due to an allegedly defective design and manufacture of a seatbelt in a Ford F-150 truck. On December 6, 2000, Ford removed the case to this Court based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Subsequently, Ford moved to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, claiming that Eastern District of Missouri is a more convenient forum. Russell objects to the motion to transfer (Doc. 9). The Court rules as follows.
II. Motions to Transfer
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which governs the transfer of an action from one federal district court to another, provides:
For the convenience of the parties and the witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it may have been brought.
A transfer under § 1404(a) is appropriate if: (1) venue is proper in both the transferor and the transferee court; (2) transfer is for the convenience of the parties and witnesses; and (3) transfer is in the interest of justice. Vandeveld v. Christoph, 877 F. Supp. 1160, 1167 (N.D.Ill. 1995).
In determining whether a motion under § 1404(a) should be granted, the court must seek to promote the efficient administration of justice and not merely the private interests of the parties. North Shore Gas Co. v. Salomon, Inc., 896 F. Supp. 786, 791 (N.D.Ill. 1995). The weighing of factors for and against transfer necessarily involves a large degree of subtlety and latitude and, therefore, is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1293 (7th Cir. 1989); Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219 (7th Cir. 1986). The party seeking a transfer under § 1404(a) bears the burden of establishing that the transferee court is clearly more convenient. Coffey, 796 F.2d at 219-20.
III. Analysis
Ford asserts and Russell does not contest that venue is proper in both the transferee court and the transferor court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) (c). What the parties dispute is whether the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice factors weigh in favor of transfer. Here, Ford has not established that the transferee district (the Eastern District of Missouri) is "clearly more convenient." Nor has Ford shown that the interest of justice is promoted by trying the case in the Eastern District of Missouri rather than this Court.
Although the initial accident that gave rise to this lawsuit occurred in St. Louis County, Missouri, and this action could have been brought in the Eastern District of Missouri, other factors mitigate against transfer to Missouri. For starters, Russell is a citizen of Illinois. "A plaintiff's choice of forum is given considerable weight where it is also the plaintiff's home forum." FUL, Inc. v. Unified School Dist. No. 204, 839 F. Supp. 1307, 1311 (N.D.Ill. 1993). Accord Vandeveld at 1167 ("A plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to substantial weight under § 1404(a), particularly where it is also the plaintiff's home forum.").
Unquestionably, the Southern District of Illinois is a convenient forum for Russell. As to the convenience of this forum to Ford, Ford does not reside in either Illinois or Missouri. Ford conducts business throughout the United States. It is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Michigan. Ford has dual citizenship — Delaware and Michigan — and its corporate representative(s) must travel to this area whether the case is tried in this Judicial District (East St. Louis, Illinois) or across the river in the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis, Missouri). The two courthouses are less than 5 miles, and an 8-minute car ride (at the very most), apart. A person can look out the window of the transferor courthouse and actually see the transferee courthouse. Thus, the Court is not persuaded that the transferor district is any less convenient than the transferee district.
The same holds true for the convenience of Ford's asserted witnesses. Ford argues that many witnesses are from the St. Louis area or from Missouri generally. The Court finds that litany of witnesses asserted by Ford as material witnesses are largely unnecessary because of the issues presented in this matter. The facts of the initial accident that gave rise to this lawsuit are not in question. Further, even assuming that these potential witnesses all actually testify, this fact is not entitled to great weight because the courthouses are so close in proximity as to render them virtually equivalent in terms of travel time and convenience of persons living or working in the St. Louis Metropolitan area or in Missouri. Ford simply has not sustained its burden of showing that proceeding with this action in this Court would inconvenience its witnesses in any tangible manner.
The record reveals that the two other drivers who initially caused the accident have settled their liability to decedent's next of kin. Therefore, the Court finds that Ford's third party argument is without merit.
As to the convenience to Russell's witnesses, the Court finds the Southern District of Illinois is more convenient. The only eye witness that claims seeing David Starkey ejected from the truck was Fred Werner. Mr. Werner resides in Belleville, Illinois which is within this judicial district. In addition, Russell's investigator of the accident, Thomas Hunter, resides in Belleville. Further, David Starkey's mother, Rebecca Starkey, will testify. Ms. Starkey is a resident of Cahokia, Illinois, which is located within the Southern District of Illinois. Lastly, the Ford F-150 truck involved in the accident (which obviously is the most important post-occurrence evidence) is located at MAPCO Salvage Yard in Pontoon Beach, Illinois, which is also within this judicial district. So, the Southern District of Illinois is perfectly convenient for Russell's witnesses and evidence.
Mr. Hunter took pictures and videotape of the truck after the accident.
Which leaves the "interest of justice" component of the transfer analysis. This element includes such considerations as whether the litigant will receive a more speedy trial in the transferee district, whether the case to be transferred could be consolidated with other related litigation pending in the transferee forum, whether jurors in a particular district have a financial interest in the case, and whether the jurors in a particular district could better apply community standards at issue in the case. See Coffey at 221. Ford has not provided evidence that any of these factors applies to this case or warrants transfer to the Eastern District of Missouri.
It is well-established that the "weighing of the factors for and against transfer necessarily . . . is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge." See, e.g., College Craft Companies, Ltd. v. Perry, 889 F. Supp. 1052, 1054 (N.D.Ill. 1995), citing Coffey, 769 F.2d at 219. Accord Brown v. Grimm, 624 F.2d 58, 59 (7th Cir. 1980). Having weighed the factors and assessed the evidence presented by Ford, the Court concludes that Ford has not sustained its burden as to warrant transfer.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Ford Motor Company's motion to transfer venue (Doc. 5).
IT IS SO ORDERED.