occur in the transfer to the Eastern District of Louisiana. Almost a year and a half has passed since Plaintiffs injury; the further delay caused in the resolution of this matter would work a great hardship on Plaintiff unnecessarily. Although Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that transfer is proper, it has failed to establish any valid basis for such an outcome. See Dupre, 810 F.Supp. at 828 (a prompt trial “is not without relevance to the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice”); Sanders v. State Street Bank, 813 F.Supp. 529, 536 (S.D.Tex.1993) (Kent, J.). III. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court finds Defendant’s argument for a transfer of venue based on its forum selection clause unpersuasive. See Time, 366 F.2d at 698 (5th Cir.1966) (<HOLDING>). In the Court’s view, the existence of a forum
holding that the moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury holding that the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the action should be transferred holding that an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal holding that the defendant bears the burden under plainerror review