Inconsistent Statement Concerning Defendants’ Principal Place of Business Warrants Denial of Motion to Transfer Venue

The court denied defendants' motion to transfer venue from the District of Delaware to the Northern District of Georgia because defendants' sworn statement about their principal place of business was inconsistent with defendants' statements in other cases and the court found such inconsistent statements were made in bad faith. "In support of their claim that this suit might have originally been filed in the Northern District of Georgia, [defendants] provide the sworn statement of . . . intellectual property counsel for [defendants]. . . . [that] 'the principal place of business of all of the . . . [affiliated defendants] is [one defendant's] headquarters in Atlanta.' . . . But [plaintiff] has produced for the court several inconsistent statements made by [defendants] in previous litigation that severely undermine the credibility of [defense counsel's] self-serving statement. In particular, in a case in this District before The Honorable Sue L. Robinson, the same thirty-two [defendant] entities-then as plaintiffs-stated in their declaratory judgment complaint that each of the regional entities had their principal places of business in their regional home . . . . . . This doublespeak -- talking out of both sides of their mouth -- is abhorrent to the interests of justice, which of course is one of the pillars of the transfer analysis. . . . When it suits [defendants] to litigate in Delaware, it takes one position. . . . When [defendant] would prefer to litigate elsewhere, it takes a different position. This is, in the court's view, bad faith. . . . [T]he court must tailor a remedy to adequately address the harm. Here, the court finds that denying [defendants'] motion is a narrowly tailored remedy."

AT&T Intellectual Property I, LP et al v. Cox Communications, Inc. et al, 1-14-cv-01106 (DED July 9, 2015, Order) (Sleet, J.)

---

Identify Arguments Made by Companies in Other Cases

As the order summarized above demonstrates, arguments and statements offered in one case can impact the course of litigation in other cases. Docket Navigator can help identify positions a company has taken in past or current litigation. For example, to view orders on motions to transfer venue in cases involving the Cox defendants discussed above, click here. To view orders in cases involving a different company (or companies), or orders involving different types of motions, click the link below then click the pencil icon next to the “party” or “type of court document” search criteria at the top of the page.