## Facts

- Turbon Products, Inc. (Turbon) sued the United States, acting through the United States Customs Service (Customs), in an action arising from a customs matter; the dispute in this opinion concerns only the place of trial.
- The Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a scheduling order setting trial for June 9, 1992, in New York City.
- Turbon asked that trial be held in Philadelphia instead of New York City, stating that its witnesses and much of its evidence were located closer to Philadelphia.
- Customs opposed the request and argued that the trial-location factors identified in *Zoltek Corp. v. United States* supported keeping trial in New York City.
- Customs argued, among other things, that Turbon had made a premature trial request rather than seeking an extension of time; the case was more likely to turn on questions of law than fact; Customs’ trial witnesses were located in or near New York City; testimony of witnesses unable to travel could be recorded; there was no need to try the case near the port of importation; and shifting the court and Customs’ witnesses to Philadelphia would cost more than having Turbon’s witnesses travel to New York.
- The CIT denied Turbon’s request to move the trial to Philadelphia.
- Turbon then filed a motion for reconsideration of the order keeping trial in New York City.

## Issues

1. Whether the CIT should grant Turbon’s motion for reconsideration and change the trial location from New York City to Philadelphia.
2. Whether, applying the *Zoltek* trial-location factors, Turbon showed that Philadelphia was the more appropriate trial site.

## Decision

- The CIT denied Turbon’s motion for reconsideration.
- The court kept the trial location in New York City as set in the scheduling order.
- The court concluded that the *Zoltek* considerations continued to favor New York City and that Turbon did not provide a sufficient reason to change the earlier ruling.

## Legal Principles

- The CIT has discretion to set the place of trial and may decide trial location based on case-management and fairness considerations.
- In selecting a trial site, the CIT considers the factors described in *Zoltek Corp. v. United States*, including:
  - whether the dispute is likely to present primarily legal questions or require extensive live testimony on disputed facts;
  - the location and convenience of trial witnesses for both sides;
  - whether testimony for witnesses who cannot travel can be preserved through depositions or other recorded means;
  - whether there is a meaningful need to try the case near the port of importation;
  - the comparative costs and burdens of moving the court and government witnesses versus requiring the private party’s witnesses to travel.
- A party’s timing and procedural choices (such as making a premature trial request instead of seeking an extension through the scheduling process) may weigh against a request to change trial location.
- Reconsideration of an earlier trial-location ruling is not granted simply because a party repeats convenience arguments previously presented; the moving party must show a meaningful basis to revisit the order, such as new matter, a change in circumstances, or clear error in the original decision.

## Conclusion

The CIT refused to reconsider its earlier trial-location decision because the *Zoltek* factors still favored trying the case in New York City: the dispute was expected to be largely legal, Customs’ witnesses were situated in or near New York, recorded testimony could address travel limits for other witnesses, there was no demonstrated need to sit near the port of importation, and the overall cost of moving the court and Customs to Philadelphia outweighed Turbon’s asserted convenience.


Turbon Products, Inc. v. United States, 16 C.I.T. 95 (1992)