United States v. Napoli, 3:10-cr-00642

Background

Defendant Napoli moved to transfer and sever the Philadelphia-based criminal action to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Motion to transfer and sever was denied; court exercised discretion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 21(b).
Court considers ten transfer factors including defendant and witness locations, events, documents, costs, and logistics.
Napoli lives in the Philadelphia area; location weighs in favor of transfer, but burden mitigated by waivers of non-essential appearances.
Evidence largely in the Northern District of California; some documents may have originated in Philadelphia but production minimizes relevance of original location.
Special elements emphasize efficiency of single forum; multiple trials across coasts would hinder speed and increase costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Napoli’s location favors transfer.	Napoli’s Philadelphia location weighs in favor of transfer.	Other factors can outweigh location and support denial of transfer.	Transfer denied; location alone not controlling given overall factors.
Whether location of witnesses supports transfer.	At least three case agents in CA will testify; witnesses in CA and potential Philadelphia witnesses affect travel costs.	Napoli will call witnesses from Philadelphia; government bears if Napoli cannot transport.	Factors neutral or against transfer; cost considerations favor keeping proceedings in one forum.
Whether location of events tips toward transfer.	Napoli’s oversight of nationwide conspiracy occurred in Philadelphia.	Conspiracy effects were nationwide and affect multiple districts; venue not solely determined by local events.	Slight tilt toward transfer but not enough to overcome other factors.
Whether the location of evidence argues against transfer.	Most records are in CA; Philadelphia originals are less significant since production occurred.	Some records originated in Philadelphia and could be burdensome to relocate.	Evidence location weighs against transfer; production reduces relevance of original location.
Whether efficiency and special elements support denial of transfer.	Severance and multiple trials across coasts would be inefficient and costly.	Transfer could centralize proceedings but might complicate multiple trials among co-defendants.	Special elements favor denying transfer to preserve efficiency and avoid duplicative proceedings.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Polizzi, 500 F.2d 856 (9th Cir. 1974) (discretion in transfer based on convenience and justice)
Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 376 U.S. 240 (U.S. 1964) (ten-factor transfer framework)
Testa v. United States, 548 F.2d 856 (2d Cir. 1977) (co-trial efficiency and severance considerations)
United States v. Morrison, 946 F.2d 484 (7th Cir. 1991) (multiple trials and related costs weigh against transfer)
United States v. Zylstra, 713 F.2d 1332 (7th Cir. 1983) (similar transfer considerations in multi-defendant contexts)
United States v. Motz, 652 F. Supp. 2d 284 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (documents and records location not controlling for venue)
Testa, 548 F.2d 856, Testa (2d Cir. 1977) (cited within opinion for transfer reasoning)
U.S. Steel Corp., 233 F. Supp. 154 (D.C.N.Y. 1964) (economic disruption considerations in transfer)