With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the convenience of witnesses is only implicated at the trial stage. Defendants have not identified any non-party California witnesses. They have speculated that, since there is high turnover in the film industry, it is likely that some of their current employee-witnesses will not be subject to employer requirements or subpoena at the time of trial in Connecticut, and presentation of their testimony by deposition will be less effective. While the existence of material witnesses who are not within the subpoena power of the Court and are unwilling to travel to Connecticut would weigh substantially in favor of a transfer, the mere speculation that there may come to be such witnesses cannot be weighed in the calculus at this time. See e.g., Pitney Bowes, Inc., 33 F.Supp.2d at 131-32 (<HOLDING>). Access to Sources of Proof “Although the

A: holding that former employees state law claim of fraud brought against his former employer was preempted by labor management relations act
B: holding that where an spa does not mention former employees but only current employees and a complaint only alleges that former employees were solicited there is no breach of a nonsolicitation clause
C: holding that transfer was not warranted where it was not clear that identified former employees of the defendant would be unwilling to testify
D: holding that a denial of transfer was not an adverse employment action where the plaintiff asserted only that the transfer would allow him to work closer to home
C.