961 F. Supp. 2d 295
D.D.C.2013Background
- Hooker, a Maryland resident, is a NASA oceanographer at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD.
- In August 2010, Goddard initiated a workplace misconduct investigation into Hooker for statements to contractors.
- The contractors involved were SSAI employees headquartered in Lanham, MD.
- NASA imposed actions against Hooker, including a three-day suspension, following the investigation.
- Hooker filed suit in August 2012 alleging Privacy Act violations; NASA moved to transfer or dismiss.
- The court granted NASA’s motion to transfer the case to the District of Maryland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is transfer under §1404(a) proper? | MD is appropriate; Hooker could have sued there; plaintiff's choice merits some deference. | MD proper due to events and witnesses in Maryland; convenience and justice favor transfer. | Transfer under §1404(a) proper. |
| Could action have been filed in Maryland under Privacy Act §552a(g)(5)? | Hooker resides in Maryland; action could be filed there. | District of Maryland is an original proper venue under the Privacy Act. | Yes; could have been filed in Maryland. |
| Do private-interest factors favor transfer? | Plaintiff’s forum choice should be respected. | Private factors strongly favor Maryland (location of events, witnesses, records). | Private-interest factors favor transfer. |
| Do public-interest factors favor transfer? | Not necessary to analyze MD; federal law familiarity is even across venues. | Maryland has local interest; convenience to the parties and witnesses supports Maryland. | Public-interest factors favor transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1988) (discretion to transfer under 1404(a) with case-by-case analysis)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (transfer governs by moving action to proper venue)
- Thayer/Patricof Educ. Funding, L.L.C. v. Pryor Res., Inc., 196 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2002) (private-interest factors include plaintiff's forum choice and witnesses)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (forum convenience and forum non conveniens considerations)
- Sheffer v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 873 F. Supp. 2d 371 (D.D.C. 2012) (local interest and familiarity with governing laws in public-interest analysis)
- In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 829 F.2d 1171 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (factors weighing transfer and related considerations in venue disputes)