New Venue Transfer Mandamus Case

In re TikTok, Inc. returns to the ground plowed by In re Volkswagen in 2008 and In re Radmax in 2014: a mandamus petition about the erroneous denial of a motion to transfer venue under 28 USC § 1404(a). In this case (an intellectual-property case brought against TikTok by another Chinese business), The Fifth Circuit noted several missteps by the district court that justified mandamus relief, inter alia:

• Relative ease of access to sources of proof–source code. “The district court concluded that the source code was accessible as easily in Texas as in California because one member of the California engineering team with the needed security clearance worked remotely in Irving, Texas. But the court erred by comparing Texas with California when it should have been comparing the Western District of Texas with the Northern District of California.”
• Relative ease of access to sources of proof–people. “Neither the district court nor Meishe identifies any record evidence showing that any employee in the Western District of Texas possesses proof relevant to this case. The district court relied on deposition testimony and witness declarations from several of petitioners’ employees. That evidence, however, only establishes that a high-ranking company executive and other employees worked in Austin as members of a “Global Business Solutions Group.” It does not tie those individuals to this case, or show that they do any work related to the video-editing functionality or its implementation, or support the proposition that any of them would have physical proof relevant to the adjudication of Meishe’s claims. … [I]t is pure speculation whether any of petitioners’ Austin-based employees possesses or has access to proof relevant to this case.”
• Court-created delay. “Petitioners filed their § 1404(a) motion timely, yet the district court took no action on the motion for months, with the record showing no adequate reason for the delay. Moreover, the court failed to grant a stay, so the case proceeded through discovery for almost a year. When the court finally ruled, it used the case progress its delay engendered as a reason for denying transfer. If we were to hold that this is a proper exercise of discretion, a district court would have absolute control over whether these two factors weighed in favor of transfer.”