parties access to the vast majority of the relevant evidence, and that Ms. Ito’s claims flow from Tokio Marine’s refusal to fulfill its obligations under the 1996 agreement, as opposed to the accident itself, Petitioner is incorrect that a significant portion of the relevant evidence is located in Japan.
Petitioner also argues that the Court of Appeals’ opinion is a rejection of Piper Aircraft’s holding that a moving party is not required to supply the court with detailed proffers of potential witnesses’ testimony. This assertion misconstrues the holding in Piper Aircraft. Piper Aircraft reaffirmed that the moving party must show that litigation in the United States would deny the parties access to “crucial witnesses.” In holding that the proper inquiry examines not only the location, but also the materiality and relevance of potential evidence, the Court of Appeals’ opinion is entirely consistent with Piper Aircraft’s holding that dismissal is appropriate where “many crucial witnesses are located beyond the reach of compulsory process.” Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 258 (emphasis added). It is also consistent with the opinion of every circuit to consider whether the Gilbert factors require inquiry into the location of relevant evidence. These courts have sensibly held that, in some cases, it is insufficient simply to tally the number of witnesses and documents that are located in the foreign jurisdiction. Rather, district courts must examine the materiality and importance of the anticipated evidence. Duha, 448 F.3d at 877 (“[T]he weighing of the costs of witness attendance should . . . focus on witnesses whose relevance has been established by record evidence.”); Reid-Walen, 933 F.2d at 1397 (noting that the defendants had not established that there were more “key witnesses” in the foreign forum); Sigalas v. Lido Maritime, Inc., 776 F.2d 1512, 1520 (11th Cir. 1985) (considering not only the number of witnesses located in the foreign forum, but the significance of those witnesses to future litigation).