Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
BROWN v. NEWS GROUP PUBLS.
April 5, 1983
FRANKLIN C. BROWN, Plaintiff,
NEWS GROUP PUBLICATIONS, INC., and MICHAEL KRAMER, Defendants
The opinion of the court was delivered by: RAMBO
Franklin C. Brown filed a complaint on December 23, 1982 against News Group Publications, Inc. and Michael Kramer. The complaint alleges that defendant Kramer tape recorded an interview with Brown without Brown's permission. The interview was used as a source for articles written by Kramer and published in New York magazine. Brown alleges four causes of action: (1) invasion of privacy by placing Brown in a false light; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) invasions of privacy by wrongfully taping the interview; and (4) defamation by libel.
On February 18, 1983 the defendants filed a motion for a change of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) provides:
(a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.
(1) those of private interest to the litigants: the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. There may also be questions as to the enforcibility of a judgment if one is obtained.
Id., 330 U.s. at 508, 67 S. Ct. at 843;
(2) those which advantage or obstruct a fair trial; It is often said that the plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, "vex," "harass," or "oppress" the defendant by inflicting upon him expense or trouble not necessary to his own right to pursue his remedy.
and (3) those effecting public policy:
Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. In cases which touch the affairs of many persons, there is reason for holding the trial in their view and reach rather than in remote parts of the country where they can learn of it by report only. There is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.
Id. at 508-09, 67 S. Ct. at 843.
The second category of factors, those which advantage or obstruct a fair trial, do not appear relevant to the present case. The defendants do not argue that plaintiff's selection of the ...
Buy This Entire Record For