Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Food Safety

Court Denies Motion for Transfer of Venue in Animal Feed
Additive Contamination Lawsuit

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Elanco Animal Health v. Archers Daniel Midland, Co., No. 1:08-cv-368-RLY-TAB, 2008 WL 4099881 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 4, 2008), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied defendant Red Oak's motion to transfer venue and its request for oral argument. As to the former request, the court discussed the convenience to the parties and witnesses, the interest of justice, and plaintiff Eli Lilly's choice of forum in the instant court, and held that the defendant failed to meet its burden to show that transfer of the case to the Southern District of Iowa would be more convenient. Without any analysis of the defendant's request for oral argument, the court denied the request because the parties had fully briefed their positions.

Background

Defendant Archers Daniel Midland purchased rice hulls from a supplier in Arkansas to make an animal feed additive, Tylan, used to prevent disease and improve feed efficiency. Id. at *3. Red Oak was hired to transport the rice hulls from Arkansas to the Archers Daniel Midland facility in Des Moines, Iowa. Id. The load that Red Oak had transported immediately prior to the rice hulls consisted of fruit loops cereal. Id. Eli Lilly alleged that the truck was not properly cleaned between the delivery of the fruit loops and the addition of the rice hulls. Id. Its complaint alleged that the fruit loop residue mixed with the rice hulls and ultimately contaminated its animal feed additive. Id. at *3-4. Eli Lilly filed suit against Archers Daniel Midland for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and strict liability. Id. at *4. It also sued Red Oak for negligence and breach of contract. Id.

Arguments

Red Oak motioned to transfer the instant case to the Southern District of Iowa, asserting that it was a more convenient forum and would better serve the interests of justice. Id.

Eli Lilly argued that any convenience gained by transferring venue would not outweigh the presumption in favor of its choice of forum. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

To determine whether Red Oak's motion to transfer venue should be entertained, the court focused on three factors: (1) convenience of the parties, (2) convenience of the witnesses, and (3) the interest of justice. Id. at *5-14. The court examined each one of these items in turn and determined that Red Oak had not clearly demonstrated that a transfer of venue would be more convenient to the parties, had not shown that a transfer would be more convenient to witnesses, and had not demonstrated that the traditional notions of judicial economy would be better served by transferring venue. Id. Additionally, the court denied Red Oak's motion for oral argument because the parties had already fully briefed their positions. Id. at *14.

The case was decided on September 4, 2008.