also unlawful insofar as they were made in reliance on that faulty analysis. See Compl. ¶¶ 98-109. II. LEGAL STANDARD “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought....” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’ ” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 101 L.Ed.2d 22 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964)); see also In re Whittman, 2001 WL 238171, at *1 (D.C.Cir. Feb. 14, 2001) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The movant “bears the burden of establishing
recognizing aljs credibility assessment is entitled to great weight and deference holding that the courts conclusion that transfer was appropriate is to be accorded great deference holding that the district courts denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is a factual question and should be accorded great deference and should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous recognizing that district courts finding of reasonable suspicion or probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances is ordinarily accorded deference holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation