to and failed to disclose the malpractice. Such a rule would not comport with the purpose of the venue statute to “protect! ] a defendant from the inconvenience of having to defend an action in a trial court that is either remote from the defendant’s residence or from the place where the acts underlying the controversy occurred.” VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1990); see also Henrich v. Field, No. 05-CV-0798, 2006 WL 2620043, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2006) (“Moreover, if Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Henrich by failing to keep him apprised of information of which he should have been made aware, those omissions occurred in Delaware.”); McArdle v. Carter, No. 09-CV-927, 2010 WL 2683375, at *5 (M.D.Ala. July 6, 2010) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the Plaintiff does cite one
holding that venue was not proper in the southern district of new york where the plaintiff resided because the allegedly erroneous advice to file a case in new york that could result in a finding of civil contempt against the plaintiff originated from the defendants office in california holding that the district where the defendant attorneys office was located was the proper venue because the defendants omissions related to their failure to communicate from their office in savannah the details of the ongoing case holding office exempt where the rest of the residence was not holding that an employee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office even though the papers seized from the office were not the property of the employee recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole