connection to the case because a large number of witnesses and relevant records and information are found there. (See, e.g., D.I. 17 at 15; D.I. 12 at 19, Civil Action No. 15-162-LPS-CJB) Because there are some number of persons (e.g., Defendants’ employees and third-party witnesses) located in the transferee district with a connection to this case, and none in Delaware, it can be said that the Northern District of California has some greater local interest in the case than does Delaware, Defendants have not, howevér, shown that this case has outsized resonance to the citizens of the transferee district, or that its outcome would significantly impact that district, Cf. Andrews Int’l, Inc. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., C.A. No. 12-775-LPS, 2013 WL 5461876, at *4 (D.Del. Sept. 30, 2013) (<HOLDING>); Downing v. Globe Direct LLC, Civil Action No.
holding that a trustee is not required to avoid the initial transfer from the initial transferee before seeking to avoid it and recover from subsequent transferees and noting that this conclusion is consistent with case law that has disallowed automatic recovery from a subsequent transferee following the avoidance of an initial transfer through a stipulated judgment or default when the transferee had not been a party to the underlying avoidance proceeding holding that this factor favors transfer but only slightly where all named inventors were located in the transferee district but the movant produced no evidence that they would refuse to appear in delaware holding that this factor strongly favored transfer where the case involved consideration of the enforceability under california law of certain insurance coverage provisions which was an issue of first impression in that state where the transferee district was located holding that california law permitted the application of a homestead exemption to property located outside the state holding that state court could regulate the practice of law in federal courts located in the state