to the chosen forum." Lappe, 857 F. Supp. at 229. One measure of the relationship, not surprisingly, is the connection between the forum and the case's operative facts. Morales v. Navieras de Puerto Rico, 713 F. Supp. 711, 712 (S.D.N.Y.1989).
In the instant motion, the relevant factors under consideration are: the convenience of parties and witnesses, access to sources of proof, providing a forum for the most expeditious and inexpensive trial, and the interest of justice, i.e., the applicability of 12 U.S.C § 1821(d)(6)(A). The Court, of course, must give due consideration of the plaintiff's original choice of forum. The Court now turns to the arguments of counsel.
B. Convenience Of Parties And Witnesses
The first factor stressed by the FDIC in favor of transfer is that the Western District of New York is more convenient to the parties and witnesses. Aquatic Amusement, 734 F. Supp. at 56. The FDIC argues that M&T and Goldome, the failed institution, have their principle places of business and books and records located in the Western District. The FDIC also claims that any necessary witnesses are located in the Western District of New York. FDIC's Memorandum of Law at 7, and 9. Thus, the FDIC also argues that convenience weighs in favor of transfer to the Western District.
Plaintiff argues that it resides in the Northern District, and that it would be more convenient to litigate the case in this Court. Moreover, the plaintiff also argues that the FDIC has not provided the Court with a list of witnesses or a generalized statement of the witnesses expected testimony to support their Motion. LaCorte Elec. Constr. & Maintenance Inc. v. Centron Security Systems, Inc., 894 F. Supp. 80 at 84. Thus, plaintiff concludes that the FDIC has failed to make the required "clear-cut and convincing showing that the balance of convenience weighs strongly in favor of the transferee court." National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Coric, 924 F. Supp. 373, 378 (citation omitted).
The court agrees with plaintiff that, although some witnesses and the defendant bank may be located in the Western District of New York, the intervening defendants have not met their burden of proof showing that the Western District is clearly and convincingly more convenient for the parties and/or witnesses than the Northern District.
C. Access To Sources Of Proof
The second factor that the FDIC claims supports a motion to transfer is the ease of access to proof Aquatic, 734 F. Supp. at 56. In this instance, the FDIC relies upon the fact, previously discussed, that Goldome's principle place of business and records are located in the Western District of New York. However, plaintiff points out that the argument is based on the FDIC's attorney's statement that the books, records and witnesses are located in the Western District However, no showing has been made that transporting the necessary records would create an undue expense, or that the "ease of access" to proof would be impaired seriously if the required records had to be transported from the Western District to the Northern District. See National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Coric, 924 F. Supp. 373, 378 (quoting, Aquatic, 734 F. Supp. 54, 56 (N.D.N.Y.1996)).
The Court finds that the FDIC has not made a clear and convincing showing that the ease of access to proof would be impaired if the case was tried in the Northern District of New York, rather than the Western District of New York.
D. Interests Of Justice
A third factor that the Court is asked to consider when determining the instant motion is the interests of justice. Aquatic, 734 F. Supp. at 56. The FDIC argues that § 1821(d)(6)(A) of the FDI Act mandates transfer. The FDI Act provides, in relevant part,
(6) Provision for agency review or judicial determination of claims