associated with transferring the litigation to Kansas. Although the Court notes that plaintiffs counsel is located in Washington, D.C., “[t]he location of counsel carries little, if any, weight in an analysis under § 1404(a).” Wyandotte, No. 04-cv-1727, slip op. at 10 (citing Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 104 F.Supp.2d 48, 52 n. 7 (D.D.C.2000)). As to the convenience of the potential witnesses in this case, that factor is of little weight since the plaintiff seeks review of an agency administrative decision. See id. at 10-11. Where the plaintiff seeks administrative review of an agency decision, the “convenience to the witnesses, is of little or no relevance since this is a review of an administrative decision that will be limited to the record.” Id.; Trout Unlimited, 944 F.Supp. at 18 (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, the Court concludes that
holding that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is review of the administrative record conducted under the administrative procedure act holding that determination of public convenience and necessity by the public service commission was an issue of fact which warranted substantial judicial deference to the factfinding processes of the administrative agency holding that the convenience of the witnesses has less relevance where the case involved judicial review of an administrative decision holding that scope of review of administrative decision is the same as that for an appeal in any nonjury case holding the separate classification of one purported administrative convenience claim can never be reasonable and necessary for administrative convenience