the location of relevant documents and relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; (4) the locus of the operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) the forum’s familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded the plaintiffs choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances. Overland, Inc. v. Taylor, 79 F.Supp.2d 809, 811 (E.D.Mich.2000); see also Grand Kensington, LLC v. Burger King Corp., 81 F.Supp.2d 834, 836 (E.D.Mich.2000); Helder v. Hitachi Power Tools, USA Ltd,., 764 F.Supp. 93, 96 (E.D.Mich.1991); accord Moses v. Bus. Card Express, Inc., 929 F.2d 1131, 1137 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Stewart Organization, Inc., 487 U.S.
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a separate trial for the counterclaims where the convenience of the parties would be served recognizing such balance of interests holding that a court should consider the private interests of the parties including their convenience and the convenience of potential witnesses as well as other publicinterest concerns such as systemic integrity and fairness which come under the rubric of interests of justice  holding that directors of a whollyowned corporation could consider the interests of the parent company as well as the interests of their corporation because there was only one substantive interest to be protected holding that its flexible approach to due process taking account of private interests the potential for reducing erroneous deprivations and the costs of procedures needed to reduce errors applies to evaluations of notice as well as the procedures at a hearing