## Facts

- Judith MacMunn, a Massachusetts resident, alleged she was exposed in utero to diethylstilbestrol (DES) in 1962 and that the exposure caused uterine and cervical malformations, infertility, physical and mental pain, and related medical expenses.
- MacMunn’s mother also was a Massachusetts resident and lived in Massachusetts during the 1962 pregnancy when the alleged DES ingestion occurred.
- On September 14, 2007, Judith MacMunn and her husband, Michael MacMunn, sued Eli Lilly & Co. (a manufacturer of DES) in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
- The complaint asserted products-liability and related theories, including negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and a loss-of-consortium claim by Michael MacMunn, and sought $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages.
- On November 2, 2007, Eli Lilly removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The parties appeared for an initial status hearing on January 8, 2008, and the court set a schedule with discovery to close on September 22, 2008.
- Before substantial discovery occurred, Eli Lilly moved to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); plaintiffs opposed.
- The plaintiffs’ treating physicians, medical records, and other expected fact witnesses were located in Massachusetts, and the events giving rise to the alleged injuries occurred there.

## Issues

1. Could the action have been brought in the District of Massachusetts for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (including whether venue would be proper there under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a))?
2. Do the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) favor transfer from the District of Columbia to Massachusetts?

## Decision

- The court granted Eli Lilly’s motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The court held the case could have been brought in the District of Massachusetts and ordered transfer to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The court found the dispute’s meaningful connections were centered in Massachusetts, while the District of Columbia had little connection beyond the plaintiffs’ filing choice.
- The court noted the case was at an early stage, reducing any disruption from transferring the action.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a civil action to another district “where it might have been brought” for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
- When jurisdiction is based solely on diversity, venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), including the provision allowing venue where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.”
- The moving party bears the burden to show (1) the action could have been brought in the proposed transferee district and (2) the balance of convenience and justice favors transfer.
- Courts apply a case-specific assessment of private-interest and public-interest considerations.
- Private-interest considerations include the plaintiff’s forum choice, the defendant’s preferred forum, where the claim arose, convenience to the parties, convenience to witnesses (especially non-party witnesses), and access to sources of proof.
- Public-interest considerations include the local interest in resolving local disputes, docket and administrative considerations, and the transferee court’s familiarity with the substantive law likely to apply.
- A plaintiff’s chosen forum receives less weight when the forum has little factual connection to the dispute.

## Conclusion

The district court transferred the DES exposure lawsuit from the District of Columbia to Massachusetts because the case could have been filed there and the convenience and justice factors favored Massachusetts: the plaintiffs lived there, the alleged DES prescription and ingestion occurred there, and essentially all witnesses and records were located there, with the case still early in discovery.


MacMunn v. Eli Lilly Co., 559 F. Supp. 2d 58 (2008)