Ovist v. Unum, 2018 WL 3853739 (D.Mass.).  

Ovist v. Unum, 2018 WL 3853739 (D.Mass.). A court may transfer a case to another venue (another court) where a case may have been brought, upon a motion by the party wanting the transfer, but the moving party must show that considerations of convenience and judicial efficiency “strongly favor” the transfer.  Here Magistrate Judge Hennessy recommended denying Defendant Unum’s motion to transfer venue from Massachusetts to Florida, even though the Plaintiff lives and worked in Florida and Massachusetts had no connection to the case’s operative facts.  Unum failed to show that considerations of convenience and judicial efficiency strongly favored litigating the claim in the second forum.  These motions often come down to witness convenience, but in an ERISA review there is no trial and both parties indicated there would be no witnesses.  The fact that the Plaintiff chose this forum (because her lawyer practices here) bore some, but very little, weight, and Defendants could not overcome their burden of showing that convenience or judicial efficiency strongly favored the transfer.  The takeaway: plaintiffs should choose their venue to suit themselves, and let plans or insurers try to transfer the case if they desire.