NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA began the practice in 2004 of (a) bringing massive "copyright infringement" cases against large numbers of John Does, (b) making a motion for discovery into the John Does' name and address, and then (c) dismissing the case after getting the identifying information. Although the RIAA could have easily obtained information from publicly accessible web sites as to the state, and region of the state, in which each John Doe resided, it deliberately ignored that, and brought suit where the ISP was located — often thousands of miles away from where the defendants were located. Now, in the new wave of copyright troll
lawsuits being brought by small movie producers — against individuals each of whom is accused of downloading a single movie through BitTorrent — the courts have shown less patience with that practice. In New Sensations v Does 1-1474, the Judge in California conducted her own examination of a random assortment of the IP addresses, saw that most of the defendants were not located in California, and ordered the plaintiffs to dismiss as to all John Does for whom it could not show that there was proper jurisdiction and venue. In her 6-page order (PDF) Chief Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James of the Northern District of California held that "Where Plaintiff has made no effort to determine jurisdiction, the administration of justice is not served by requiring out-of-state recipients of subpoenas to bring challenges to the subpoenas in far-flung jurisdictions.""
Link to Original Source