This is a significant win for defendants faced with forum-shopped litigation filed in venues, such as Philadelphia, with no genuine connection to the dispute at hand and where witnesses are located far outside the plaintiff’s chosen venue.

On September 25, 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion in Tranter v. Z&D Tour Inc. overturned the heightened burden that had been imposed on defendants seeking to obtain a venue transfer based on the forum non conveniens doctrine. The Tranter court held that the “key witness” standard, which had been applied by lower courts in Pennsylvania, has no basis in Pennsylvania law. The court also rejected the notion that remote technology adequately substitutes for live testimony, dismissing plaintiffs’ suggestion that it could lessen the burden on defendants. This is a significant win for defendants faced with forum-shopped litigation filed in venues, such as Philadelphia, with no genuine connection to the dispute at hand and where witnesses are located far outside the plaintiff’s chosen venue.

Background and Case Posture

The Tranter decision stems from a consolidated appeal of five lawsuits following a fatal, multiple vehicle collision. On January 5, 2020, a Z&D Tour Inc. motorcoach bus rolled over while attempting to navigate a turn on the highway. The rollover created a total blockade in the way of all westbound traffic, which resulted in a five-vehicle pileup. The crash drew hordes of first responders and held the attention of many local eyewitnesses.

Although the collisions took place near Mount Pleasant in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, plaintiffs brought suit nearly 300 miles away in Philadelphia County. In response, defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to Westmoreland County.

In Pennsylvania, any party may challenge a plaintiff’s initial choice of venue, even if the initial choice was a technically proper venue, by invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The trial court has discretion to transfer a case to another county in Pennsylvania or even another jurisdiction, under certain circumstances. Tranter focused on intrastate venue transfers. A court may grant a forum non conveniens motion when the plaintiff’s choice of venue is vexatious—filed to harass the defendant, even at the expense of the plaintiff—or oppressive.

Defendants in Tranter alleged that Philadelphia is an oppressive venue, given that the case’s center of gravity was hundreds of miles away in Westmoreland County. Through discovery, defendants adduced 11 affidavits from potential witnesses detailing the personal and professional hardships that would ensue if they were to bear the expense of cross-commonwealth travel. In total, defendants identified 66 similarly situated potential witnesses in and near Westmoreland County.

Plaintiffs argued that the transfer was not warranted because the witnesses were not “key witnesses” to the defendants’ case and claimed that there would be no burden to witnesses located hundreds of miles away because of the availability of videoconferencing technology.

The trial court granted petitions to transfer the case to Westmoreland County. However, the Superior Court reversed on appeal, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion when it held that defendants met their burden of showing the venue’s oppressiveness. Central to the Superior Court’s opinion was the concept of a “key witness” requirement. Agreeing with plaintiffs’ interpretation, the Superior Court held that forum non conveniens movants must produce affidavits from potential witnesses wherein the witnesses state how their expected testimony is critical or “key” to the defense. The Superior Court opined that the numerous potential witness affidavits produced by defendants did not meet the key witness threshold because the witnesses failed to indicate how their testimony would be “key” to the defense at trial.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision

The Tranter court struck down the key witness requirement, calling it an “innovation” out of line with Pennsylvania precedent. Relying on two of its own more recent decisions on the issue—Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc. and Bratic v. Rubendall—the Tranter court found that the key witness requirement far exceeds a movant’s proper burden. Tranter focused on two critical aspects: relevance and hardship.

Relevance

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the requirement of having witnesses opine about their importance to a legal defense on commonsense grounds and instead replaced the key witness requirement with a more practical and less encumbering standard. To meet its burden, a petitioner may now provide the trial court with “a ‘general statement’ of what the witness’ testimony may be expected to entail.” Relevance will remain a factor in the court’s forum non conveniens analysis.

Hardship

In terms of how a movant must establish hardship, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that “a distance of one hundred miles provides a valuable benchmark for distinguishing between oppressiveness and mere inconvenience.” While cautioning that there was no bright-line rule for oppression, the court concluded that this was “not a close case” due to the number of witnesses located more than 200 miles away from Philadelphia. The court further reaffirmed existing law in holding that witnesses need not provide detailed, individualized hardship affidavits and, in fact, there is no “affidavit requirement” at all. Instead, a moving party must simply provide a general statement of what the witnesses expected testimony may entail.

The Tranter court also disposed of plaintiffs’ argument that technological advancements ease the inconvenience of travel because the argument lacks any limiting principle. While Pennsylvania litigants relied on applications like Zoom to communicate amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reiterated that technology is “not an adequate substitute in the ordinary course” and that the Rules of Civil Procedure “do not provide for the virtual appearances of witnesses at trial” in the ordinary course or absent an emergency.

Implications and Practical Considerations

Tranter restores balance amongst the divergent fairness considerations at play in forum non conveniens motions. Looking ahead, in any case filed in a court 100 miles or more away from witnesses, evidence or factual setting of the dispute, both parties should consider the possibility of either raising or having to contend with a forum non conveniens motion.

Although the key witness requirement is abolished, showing the relevance of burdened witnesses is still a requirement in arguing that a venue is oppressive. Even though the Pennsylvania Supreme Court emphatically declared that movants are not required to elicit legal opinions from potential witnesses stating whether their testimony is critical to the movant’s legal defense, movants must still prove relevance.

Importantly, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed that remote technology and the possibility for video trial testimony does not defeat the right to seek or obtain transfer.

(Note: Duane Morris represented one of the appellants, a lessor of trucks, in this matter.)

For More Information

If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Harry M. Byrne, Alyson Walker Lotman, Sharon L. Caffrey, Robert M. Palumbos, any of the attorneys in our Transportation, Automotive and Logistics Industry Group, any of the attorneys in our Trial Practice Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.