must provide enough information to allow the district court to balance the parties’ interests. Id.; see also Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 528-29 (1988) (noting that in considering a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, “the district court’s inquiry does not necessarily require extensive investigation, and may be resolved on affidavits presented by the parties”).
Other circuit courts have recognized that the amount of additional information the moving party must provide depends on the facts of a particular case. Gschwind v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 161 F.3d 602, 609-10 (10th Cir. 1998); Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft, 862 F.2d 38, 44 (3d Cir. 1988); In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, La. On July 9, 1982, 821 F.2d 1147, 1165 n.28 (5th Cir. 1987), vacated by 490 U.S. 1032 (1989), reinstated by 883 F.2d 17 (5th Cir. 1989). The Court of Appeals’ holding that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden does not conflict with any circuit court decision; no court has held that affidavits are never required for the moving party to meet its burden. Furthermore, several courts of appeals have held that dismissal for forum non conveniens is inappropriate when the moving party provides no evidence upon which its claim can be evaluated. See Rivendell Forest Prods., 2 F.3d at 993 (holding that the moving party failed to meet its burden of proving that the evidence was located in the foreign forum when it “provided no evidence on the issue whatsoever”); Reid- Walen, 933 F.2d at 1396-97 (holding that the moving party, which provided no evidence to support its assertions, failed to meet its burden of proving that most of the witnesses and evidence were located in the foreign forum); Lacey, 862 F.2d at 44 (holding that, on the particular facts of the case, “defendants did not submit sufficient information to undertake the forum non conveniens analysis”). Rather than raising new policy concerns, this line of cases reflects the Court’s reasoning in