In Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, the Supreme Court did not require any extensive evidentiary showing, beyond a demonstration "that trial may be had in the alternative forum and that some form of relief may be granted" there. (Ibid.) The remaining examination of the competing private and public interests at stake is not so much an evidentiary question as a process of weighing and balancing "more general considerations." (Ibid.) "The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses. The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation. " (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc., supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.) " ' "There are manifest reasons for preferring residents in access to often overcrowded Courts, both in convenience and in the fact that broadly speaking it is they who pay for maintaining the Courts concerned." . . . The injustices and the burdens on local courts and taxpayers, as well as on those leaving their work and business to serve as jurors, which can follow from an unchecked and unregulated importation of transitory causes of action for trial in this state . . . require that our courts, acting upon the equitable principles . . .,exercise their discretionary power to decline to proceed in those causes of action which they conclude, on satisfactory evidence, may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.' " (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc., supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.) "In our view, the fact that an alternative jurisdiction's law is less favorable to a litigant than the law of the forum should not be accorded any weight in deciding a motion for forum non conveniens provided, however, that some remedy is afforded. One basis underlying the doctrine . . . is to avoid burdening the trial court by requiring it to interpret the law of foreign jurisdictions, which compels it to conduct 'complex exercises in comparative law.' To impose such a burden on the trial court for the purpose of facilitating its consideration of a factor of only slight significance in the forum non conveniens balance would, we believe, be unwarranted." (Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc., supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 753-754, fn. 5.)