And now, July 12, 1966, after consideration of PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Document 9) and the record, it is ordered that plaintiff's petition for reconsideration is denied.
The above Petition is inaccurate in stating that Judge Van Dusen "stated that the present case was being transferred to the District of Maryland in view of the less crowded docket in the transferee jurisdiction." The partial transcript containing the statements of the judges making the ruling shows that Judge Higginbotham announced the decision of the en banc court. Judge Van Dusen added that "one of the most significant factors is the backlog in our Court as opposed to the District of Maryland * * *." He also stated: "* * * of course, there are other factors, also, as recited by counsel, such as the fact that the eye witness deposition has already been taken, is available, and the plaintiff is now in the Baltimore hospital."
The decisions in this District have recognized, ever since the leading case of Norwood v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. et al., Civil Action 15810 (Opinion of then Chief Judge Kirkpatrick filed 7/12/54), aff'd. sub nom. Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 75 S. Ct. 544, 99 L. Ed. 789 (1955), that the condition of the court calendar in the transferor and the transferee districts should be considered
in ruling on a Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See, also, United States v. Kraft Foods Company, D.C., 146 F. Supp. 132 (Opinion of November 1956);
Jurgelis v. Southern Motors Express, Inc., 169 F. Supp. 345, 346 (E.D.Pa.1959);
Frankel, Admr. v. Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc., D.C., 198 F. Supp. 266 (Opinion of 7/7/61); Newfield, etc. v. Nicholson File Company, D.C., 210 F. Supp. 796 (Opinion of 11/9/62), where the court said at page 797: "Apparently the case will be reached for trial much sooner in Rhode Island than here."
It is noted that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has used this language in the leading case of All States Freight v. Modarelli, 196 F.2d 1010, 1011 (3rd Cir. 1952), which was approved in Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, supra: