Karayanni.FN023.Piper Aircraft v. Reyno.pdf - The University of ...

OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion of the Court 454 U. S.unreasonably in concluding that fewer evidentiary problemswould be posed if the trial were held in Scotland. A largeproportion of the relevant evidence is located in GreatBritain.The Court of Appeals found that the problems of proofcould not be given any weight because Piper and Hartzellfailed to describe with specificity the evidence they would notbe able to obtain if trial were held in the United States. Itsuggested that defendants seeking forum non conveniensdismissal must submit affidavits identifying the witnessesthey would call and the testimony these witnesses would provideif the trial were held in the alternative forum. Such detailis not necessary. 26 Piper and Hartzell have moved fordismissal precisely because many crucial witnesses are locatedbeyond the reach of compulsory process, and thus aredifficult to identify or interview. Requiring extensive investigationwould defeat the purpose of their motion. Ofcourse, defendants must provide enough information to enablethe District Court to balance the parties' interests. Ourexamination of the record convinces us that sufficient in-'The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has expresslyrejected such a requirement. Fitzgerald v. Texaco, Inc., supra,at 451, n. 3. In other cases, dismissals have been affirmed despite the failureto provide detailed affidavits. See Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf OilCorp., 437 F. Supp. 910, 924 (SDNY 1977), aff'd., 588 F. 2d 880 (CA21978). And in a decision handed down two weeks after the decision in thiscase, another Third Circuit panel affirmed a dismissal without mentioningsuch a requirement. See Dahl v. United Technologies Corp., 632 F. 2d1027 (1980).The Court of Appeals apparently relied on an analogy to motions totransfer under 28 U. S. C. § 1404(a). 630 F. 2d, at 160-161. It citedMarbury-Pattillo Construction Co. v. Bayside Warehouse Co., 490 F. 2d155, 158 (CA5 1974), and Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. v. Ritter, 371 F. 2d 145,148 (CA10 1967), which suggest an affidavit requirement in the § 1404(a)context. As we have explained, however, dismissals on grounds of forumnon conveniens and § 1404(a) transfers are not directly comparable. Seesupra, at 253-254.