Christopher K. Gridley (plaintiff), a resident of Louisiana, filed a putative nationwideclass action lawsuit in Madison County, Illinois, against defendant State Farm MutualAutomobile Insurance Company (State Farm). The lawsuit alleged violations of theConsumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West2000)) and unjust enrichment. State Farm moved to dismiss the case under the doctrine ofinterstate forum non conveniens or, alternatively, to transfer the case to McLean Countyunder the doctrine of intrastate forum non conveniens. The circuit court of Madison Countydenied the motion, and State Farm appealed.

The procedural history follows. On June 19, 2000, plaintiff filed a complaint onbehalf of himself and others similarly situated. In the complaint, plaintiff claimed that StateFarm, as a part of its regular business practice, failed to obtain salvage titles for vehicleswhich had previously been declared total losses during the claims process, in violation ofstate titling laws. Plaintiff claimed that State Farm engaged in this practice because vehicleswith clean titles could be sold for significantly more money, thereby enhancing theprofitability of its claims operation. On August 21, 2000, State Farm filed a motion todismiss the class action complaint under the doctrine of interstate forum non conveniens. The motion claimed that Louisiana was a more convenient forum because the classrepresentative and only named plaintiff resided in Louisiana and that all of the evidence andwitnesses with knowledge regarding the purchase of plaintiff's vehicle were located inLouisiana. State Farm moved, in the alternative, to transfer the case to McLean County onthe ground of intrastate forum non conveniens. On June 1, 2001, the trial court denied StateFarm's motion to dismiss and alternative motion to transfer. The trial court found that StateFarm had failed to demonstrate that Madison County was an inconvenient forum and thatthe public- and private-interest factors strongly favored a dismissal of the action or,alternatively, a transfer to McLean County, Illinois.

Forum non conveniens is a doctrine that allows a court to decline jurisdiction wherea trial in another forum "would better serve the ends of justice". Vinson v. Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306, 310, 579 N.E.2d 857, 859 (1991). To determine whether the doctrine of forum nonconveniens applies, the trial court must balance the private-interest factors affecting theconvenience of the parties and the public-interest factors impacting the court's administrationof its docket. Gulf Oil v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09, 91 L. Ed. 1055, 1062-63, 67 S. Ct.839, 843 (1947); Torres v. Walsh, 98 Ill. 2d 338, 345, 456 N.E.2d 601, 604-05 (1983). Thepublic-and-private-interest-factors assessment is applicable in considering both interstate andintrastate forum non conveniens motions. See Kwasniewski v. Schaid, 153 Ill. 2d 550, 553,607 N.E.2d 214, 216 (1992). In interstate forum non conveniens motions, the plaintiff'shome forum is the state in which he resides, rather than the specific county in which heresides. See Kwasniewski, 153 Ill. 2d at 553, 607 N.E.2d at 216.

The Illinois Supreme Court recently refined and reaffirmed the doctrine of forum nonconveniens. First National Bank v. Guerine, No. 90950 (Ill. January 25, 2002). In Guerine,the supreme court acknowledged that the forum non conveniens standard, which requires ashowing that the balance of factors strongly favors litigation in another forum, remainsdifficult for defendants to meet. Guerine, slip op. at 4. The supreme court reiterated thelong-standing proposition that the defendant has the burden to show "that the plaintiff'schosen forum is inconvenient to the defendant and another forum is more convenient to allparties". Guerine, slip op. at 4. The supreme court noted that the plaintiff's choice of forumis entitled to less deference, as opposed to no deference, when the chosen forum is neitherthe plaintiff's residence nor the site of the incident or injury. Guerine, slip op. at 3. Thesupreme court also instructed that the defendant cannot establish an inconvenient forum byasserting that the chosen forum is inconvenient to the plaintiff. Guerine, slip op. at 4.

In considering a motion to dismiss or transfer based on forum non conveniens, thetrial court is required to evaluate the total circumstances in order to determine whether thedefendant has proven that the balance of factors strongly favors a transfer. Guerine, slip op.at 4. A trial court has considerable discretion in ruling on a forum non conveniens motion,and a reviewing court will not disturb the trial court's ruling absent an abuse of discretionin weighing the relevant factors. Hefner v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 276 Ill. App.3d 1099, 1103, 659 N.E.2d 448, 452 (1995). On review, we do not substitute our judgmentfor that of the trial court and we do not decide whether the circuit court has exercised itsdiscretion wisely. See Brummett v. Wepfer Marine, Inc., 111 Ill. 2d 495, 503, 490 N.E.2d694, 699 (1986). The role of the reviewing court is to determine whether the circuit courtabused its discretion. See Brummett, 111 Ill. 2d at 503, 490 N.E.2d at 699.

In Guerine, the supreme court strongly recommended that trial courts "give morecareful consideration to forum non conveniens motions" and "leave a better record of theiranalyses" so that reviewing courts can make more informed decisions. Guerine, slip op. at5. Implicit in this recommendation is a directive to the litigants to provide the trial courtwith a record of the relevant factors, supported by facts and evidence, as opposed tosupposition or conjecture, in support of or in opposition to the forum motion. WhileSupreme Court Rule 187 (134 Ill. 2d R. 187) establishes a strict time frame for filing a forumnon conveniens motion (no more than 90 days after the last day allowed for the filing of aparty's answer), it also contemplates that before the motion is heard, parties may need timeto conduct discovery on the issues of fact raised in the motion. In managing the case, thetrial court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the particular case, has thediscretion to establish a scheduling order in order to give all interested parties an opportunityfor meaningful discovery on the issues raised in the forum motion. And while the court, inits discretion, may extend a hearing date for further discovery, the moving party should beaware that it has the ultimate responsibility for seeking a ruling on the motion well inadvance of the trial date and that an unreasonable delay may be considered a factor weighingagainst a dismissal or transfer of the case based on forum non conveniens. See Bell v.Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 106 Ill. 2d 135, 146-47, 478 N.E.2d 384, 390 (1985).

Our supreme court has charged the trial court and the litigants with the responsibilityto present a detailed record regarding the forum non conveniens analysis, and we areobligated to hold them to that responsibility. While the defendant, as the proponent of theforum non conveniens motion, has the initial responsibility to submit sufficient facts tosupport the requested relief, a wise plaintiff, although technically not required to do so,would be best served by presenting facts and documents in opposition to the motion. Forthose who doubt the consequences of a plaintiff's failure to produce facts in opposition, areview of Wieser v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 98 Ill. 2d 359, 456 N.E.2d 98 (1983), wouldbe instructive.

In this case, we find that the litigants have failed in their respective responsibilities. A review of the record, the briefs, and the oral arguments convinces us that the trial courtdid not have sufficient facts to make an informed decision in a case that purportedly involvesviolations of the Illinois consumer fraud act and includes class members nationwide. To itscredit, the trial court provided a detailed discussion of the relevant factors in this case. Butthe decision is based more upon the parties' suppositions than upon facts. Based upon thepaucity of facts, we are unable to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion indenying State Farm's forum non conveniens motion. For that reason, we are unable to affirmor reverse the decision. Instead, we are remanding this case to the trial court with directionsto reconsider the motion in light of this decision and the Guerine decision.

The record reveals that the class representative is a resident of the State of Louisianaand that he purchased a vehicle in the State of Louisiana. According to the allegations inthe complaint, the class representative purchased a vehicle without knowledge that thevehicle had been deemed a total loss and subsequently repaired. Plaintiff contends that StateFarm, as a part of its regular business practices, failed to obtain salvage titles for thousandsof vehicles that had been declared total losses, including the class representative's vehicle,for the purpose of enhancing its profits. The crux of plaintiff's case is that State Farmengaged in improper and illegal claims practices which emanated from its home office inBloomington, Illinois, and which caused harm to people throughout the nation.

In this case, the putative class has not been certified. The record provides nocompetent evidence regarding the number, identity, and location of potential class members. When considering a forum non conveniens motion in a class action case, whether certifiedor uncertified, the court should consider the relevant factors in light of the identity, number,and location of potential class members, rather than limit the inquiry to the named classrepresentatives. Similarly, the location and availability of documentary and physicalevidence on a class-wide basis should be considered. The reason the inquiry must extendbeyond the named class representative is that a significant portion of the proof at the trial(witnesses, documents, and other tangible items) may well be located in a place differentfrom the representative's place of residence. Moreover, if the class is certified, members ofthe class may be widely disbursed throughout the state or nation. Making a forum nonconveniens decision based solely upon the residence of the class representatives may resultin the case being heard in a decidedly inconvenient forum for the rest of the class members.

If potential class members are widely disbursed throughout the nation, it may well bethat numerous appropriate forums would be available. If a disproportionate number of thepotential class members resided in Illinois or were Madison County residents, that factwould weigh heavily in favor of the chosen forum. See Hayes v. Fireman's Fund MortgageCorp., 272 Ill. App. 3d 271, 280, 649 N.E.2d 582, 587 (1995); Warrick v. General ElectricCo., 70 F.3d 736, 740 (2d Cir. 1995) (memorandum opinion and order); Roots Partnershipv. Lands' End, Inc., No. 90-C-1310 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 1990). The mere fact that some otherforum might also be appropriate does not diminish the propriety of the chosen forum.

The trial court must evaluate the total circumstances, and no single factor should begiven undue weight. See Guerine, slip op. at 4. In Guerine, our supreme court clarified thestandard for us to apply in reviewing trial court rulings in intrastate forum non convenienscases where trial witnesses are scattered among several counties and no single county enjoysa predominant connection to the litigation. The court stated as follows:

"[W]e hold that a trial court abuses its discretion in granting an intrastate forum nonconveniens motion to transfer venue where, as here, the potential trial witnesses arescattered among several counties, including the plaintiff's chosen forum, and nosingle county enjoys a predominant connection to the litigation. The balance offactors must strongly favor transfer of the case before the plaintiff can be deprivedof his chosen forum." Guerine, slip op. at 7.

We believe that the same standard ought to apply in the evaluation of an interstate forum nonconveniens ruling where witnesses are scattered in several states and no single jurisdiction(state) enjoys a predominant connection to the litigation. We hereby adopt this standard formeasuring the trial court's exercise of discretion in interstate cases.

In this case, the record lacks competent information regarding the location ofdocuments, witnesses, or sources of proof regarding State Farm's alleged misconduct. Theprivate-interest factors, such as convenience to the parties and the witnesses, may beweighed differently depending upon whether the alleged misconduct, or some part thereof,emanated from and occurred in State Farm's corporate offices in Bloomington, Illinois, orin its satellite offices around the country. In addition, neither party has identified anyprospective witnesses who are central to the disputed issues in this litigation. For example,State Farm claims that all of the fact witnesses regarding the class representative are locatedin Louisiana, but it has never indicated that it would call any of these witnesses in its defenseof the case. As support for his argument that Madison County is a convenient forum withconnections to this action, plaintiff states that State Farm's own records show thatapproximately 5,000 State Farm-insured vehicles were totaled out in Madison County. Interms of a forum analysis, this fact is insignificant in the absence of some evidence that cleantitles were issued in Madison County when salvage titles should have been issued or that anyof these 5,000 vehicles were sold with a clean title instead of a salvage title to unsuspectingconsumers.

On remand, the trial court should enter a detailed discovery order establishing theparameters of discovery. We recognize that the scope of discovery required to address theforum non conveniens issues may overlap discovery materials that are relevant to classcertification issues, to the merits of the litigation, or to both. Under the watchful eye of thetrial court, we trust that the parties can work together to tailor discovery requests that willproduce information relevant to the issue raised in the forum non conveniens motion and will curtail fishing expeditions and dump truck responses. Given that preliminary discoveryhas been undertaken, we are confident that this discovery can be completed within areasonable period of time and that a ruling will be issued without unreasonable delay.

In briefing the issues raised in this appeal and in oral argument, plaintiff's counsel'sprimary argument has been that State Farm has not "met its burden" to show that the public-and private-interest factors strongly favor a transfer from Madison County, that anydeficiencies in the record are to be resolved against the defendant, and that, therefore, he didnot have to show that Madison County was a convenient forum. Plaintiff's counsel alsosuggested that though he showed that Madison County had a connection to the litigation, hisefforts were hampered by State Farm's objections to his interrogatories. The record revealsthat counsel did not seek a ruling from the court on the objections. Counsel should take notethat a party will not be heard to complain of an opponent's failure to produce informationwhere that party fails to seek an order mandating compliance with his discovery requests. See generally Intercontinental Parts, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 260 Ill. App. 3d 1085, 1090-91, 631 N.E.2d 1258, 1263 (1994). We have no quarrel with plaintiff's counsel's positionthat it is not incumbent on the plaintiff to respond to an opponent's motion if he feels thathis opponent has not met its burden. However, when a movant has presented an arguablecase, it behooves the nonmoving party to take some affirmative steps to compel informationthat will support his chosen forum, rather than rely on perceived deficiencies in theopponent's record. See Wieser, 98 Ill. 2d 359, 456 N.E.2d 98. A party's unwise gamble onsupposed deficiencies in the record may ultimately require him to try his case in a forum notof his choosing.

One other point merits attention. During the oral argument of this case, this courtasked State Farm's attorney whether he agreed with the proposition that in the context ofinterstate forum non conveniens, the plaintiff's chosen forum is considered the state in whichthe case is filed rather than the specific county in which the case is filed. State Farm'scounsel strongly disagreed. For the benefit of counsel on remand, reference is made toSimantz v. Prime Motor Inns, Inc., 213 Ill. App. 3d 813, 817, 573 N.E.2d 234, 236 (1991). In that case, the court framed the following issue: "The question is whether the fact that thetwo Illinois plaintiffs are not residents of Kane County, the county in which they filed theirsuit, and the fact that the litigation has few, if any, connections with Kane County is [sic]relevant to an interstate forum non conveniens motion." Simantz, 213 Ill. App. 3d at 816-17,573 N.E.2d at 236. The court answered the question this way:

"Defendants' motion to dismiss was based on interstate forum non conveniens;the issue to be addressed on such a motion is whether the more appropriate forum isoutside Illinois. The focus is on Illinois' [sic] connections with the litigation. Forpurposes of such a motion, the 'home forum' of the Illinois residents is Illinois. Ifdefendants feel that there is another county in Illinois that might provide a moreappropriate forum for this action, they are free to file an intrastate forum nonconveniens motion and to request a transfer of the action to that county." Simantz,213 Ill. App. 3d at 817, 573 N.E.2d at 236.

See also Kwasniewski, 153 Ill. 2d at 553-54, 607 N.E.2d at 216 (citing Simantz withapproval).

Though the trial court engaged in a lengthy analysis of the relevant factors in thiscase, the analysis was guided by assertions in the parties' arguments rather than by facts. Because of the lack of a developed record, we cannot determine whether State Farm'smotion should have been granted or denied. Therefore, we remand this case to the trial courtwith directions to establish a discovery schedule, to offer the parties an opportunity to briefand present argument based upon competent evidence rather than conjecture, and toreconsider its decision in light of Guerine and this decision.

Accordingly, we remand this case to the circuit court with directions.

Remanded with directions.

CHAPMAN, Melissa, and HOPKINS, JJ., concur.