and that because “the task of deciding foreign law is a chore federal courts must often perform ... the application of foreign law should not be ascribed undue importance.” Mercier II, 981 F.2d at 1357 (internal quotation and citation omitted). On occasion, the First Circuit has gone so far as to hold that the application of foreign law should be given “little weight” in determining a forum non conveniens motion. See Nowak v. Tak How Invs., Ltd., 94 F.3d 708, 721 (1st Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1155, 117 5.Ct. 1333, 137 L.Ed.2d 493 (1997). Therefore, while the application of Korean law i 3417587, at *16 (D.N.H. Oct. 16, 2009) (finding that plaintiffs residence in forum contributed to “local interest” in case); Philipps v. Talty, 555 F.Supp.2d 265, 271-2 (D.N.H.2008) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, both Massachusetts and
holding that the defendants burden at this stage is one of production not one of persuasion holding that in the absence of a statute providing immunity the defense of sovereign immunity is not available to a municipal corporation in an action for damages alleged to be caused by the tortious conduct of the municipality recognizing that pennsylvania had no interest in denying its residents the greater damages available under new jersey consumer fraud statutes for claims against a new jersey seller holding one cannot grant an easement to oneself one can only reserve such interest in land granted to another recognizing one potential forums interest in providing redress for injuries caused by one of its residents emphasis added and alternate forums interest in providing redress for harm caused to one of its residents