Woodward v. Emulex Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that a party must “specify clearly the key witnesses to be called and indicate what their testimony will entail”
• New Jersey based defendant a and Minnesota- based investor plaintiffs each arguing that their own district is more convenient
• New Jersey based defendant a and Minnesota- based investor plaintiffs each arguing that their own district is more convenient
• “The focus is on non-party witnesses, since it is generally assumed that witnesses within the control of the party calling them, such as employees, will appear voluntarily in a foreign forum.”
• “[G]iven the strong preference for live testimony, . . . litigating in Minnesota presents an obstacle to [the defendant] receiving a fair trial, as several key witnesses are not located within the subpoena power of this Court.”
• “[G]iven the strong preference for live testimony, . . . litigating in Minnesota presents an obstacle to [the defendant] receiving a fair trial, as several key witnesses are not located within the subpoena power of this Court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).