the majority errs in concluding Cameco has satisfied this burden by overestimating the difficulties Cameco would face were it to litigate these claims in Colorado, by underestimating the interest Colorado has to resolve this dispute, and by concluding, without support from the record, that Canada would be the most efficient venue. i The Burden on Cameco The majority’s conclusion that the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this case would be unreasonable rests primarily upon what I believe to be an exaggeration of the burden on Cameco to litigate in Colorado. In particular, the majority is concerned ■ that litigation in Colorado will require Cameco employees to “travel outside their home country” and litigate the dispute “in a forum unfami s Ltd., 138 F.3d 624, 629 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Came-co’s headquarters in
holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to require a defendant to pay all back taxes holding that the kentucky supreme court erroneously put the burden on the defendant to show eed when it was actually the governments obligation to prove a lack of eed holding that it was reasonable to require a defendant from ontario to litigate in kentucky because ontario wasonly a short plane flight away holding the burden of forcing a canadian defendant to litigate in florida was uncompelling holding that the appropriate sanction was to require the defendant to disclose the nature of the agreement with the witness