[An] allegation that a Doe defendant resides in [a c]ity [located in this district] supports the finding that this Court is a proper venue under § 1391(b)(1). But even if the Court is a proper venue, it may transfer Plaintiff’s claims “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “District courts have broad discretion in making determinations of convenience under Section 1404(a) and notions of convenience and fairness are considered on a case-by-case basis.” Moreover, courts may transfer cases on their own initiative. (“Courts have an independent institutional concern to see to it that the burdens of litigation that is unrelated to the forum that a party chooses are not imposed unreasonably on jurors and judges who have enough to do in determining cases that are appropriately before them. The power of district courts to transfer cases under Section 1404(a) sua sponte therefore is well established.” (noting that “broad language of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) would seem to permit a court to order transfer sua sponte”).
In determining whether transfer is appropriate, courts consider the following factors: (1) the convenience of witnesses; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the locus of operative facts; (4) the availability of process to compel the attendance of the unwilling witnesses; (5) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) the forum’s familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded to the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (9) trial efficiency; and (10) the interest of justice, based on the totality of circumstances. (setting forth similar factors). A plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded less deference where plaintiff does not reside in the chosen forum and the operative events did not occur there. Doe v. California, 19-CV-2494 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2019) (citations omitted)
Further, “a district court may stay. . . a suit that is duplicative of another federal court suit.”
Plaintiff Under Seal v. Fox/Fremantle Prison, 19-CV-165 (BMC) (RLM) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2019) (emphasis/ellipses added) (citations omitted)