will not be prejudiced by proceeding in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because both PAB and PSE are Pennsylvania corporations with their principal places of business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Thus, Defendants' witnesses and documentary evidence will be accessible.
The principal benefit of transfer, as articulated by Defendants, is consolidation of this case with those currently pending in New York. The pendency of related litigation in another forum is a proper factor to consider in choice of venue questions. See Codex v. Milgo Elec. Corp., 553 F.2d 735, 739 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 860, 98 S. Ct. 185, 54 L. Ed. 2d 133 (1977); Hill's Pet Prods. v. A.S.U., Inc., 808 F. Supp. 774 (D. Kan. 1992); Blanning v. Tisch, 378 F. Supp. 1058, 1061 (E.D. Pa. 1974). The simultaneous prosecution in two separate courts of cases relating to the same parties and issues may lead to a waste of time, energy, and money. Hill's Pet Prods., 808 F. Supp. at 777 (quoting Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown, 348 F.2d 689, 692 (10th Cir. 1965)). See also Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26, 80 S. Ct. 1470, 1474, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1540 (1960).
However, I am not convinced that allowing this case to remain in this Court would result in a waste of private or public resources. To the contrary, discovery and trial could be expedited in this Court while transfer and eventual consolidation in New York is likely to lead to protracted delay. Additionally, Defendants concede that not all of the cases pending in New York are presently before the same judge. See Tr. 5/22/96 at 31. Further, this Court is well equipped to address the issues of law that are likely to arise, and there is no suggestion that a jury of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania might harbor any prejudice as to the parties or issues presented.
After weighing all of the relevant public and private considerations, I conclude that Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating the need for transfer. This Court remains the appropriate forum for this case. Defendants' motion to transfer will therefore be denied.
An appropriate Order follows.
AND NOW, this 25th day of July, 1996, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Referral to the FCC and Transfer to the Southern District of New York (Doc. No. 9) Plaintiff's Response (Doc. No. 13) Defendants' Reply (Doc. No. 16) and Plaintiff's Sur-Reply (Doc. No. 18), and following oral argument on May 22, 1996, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. That portion of Defendant's Motion seeking referral to the Federal Communications Commission is GRANTED and this consolidated case is referred to the Federal Communications Commission;
2. That portion of Defendants' Motion seeking to transfer this consolidated case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is DENIED;
3. The Clerk of the Court shall place this consolidated case in CIVIL SUSPENSE;
4. This consolidated case shall remain in civil suspense until resolution of the proceedings before the Federal Communications Commission or until otherwise ordered re-activated by the Court.
BY THE COURT:
John R. Padova, J.