Rosemary Collyer, one of the DC federal judges overseeing the US Copyright Group's tens of thousands of file-sharing lawsuits, is open to one of the main arguments made by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and by ISPs: the DC court doesn't have jurisdiction over random individuals from all over the country.

In a ruling today, Collyer pointed to several recent "motions to quash" the US Copyright Group subpoenas targeting ISPs. (The subpoenas ask ISPs to connect a specific IP address to a name and physical location.) The motions came from several different states.

"These defendants appear to live outside of Washington, DC," she noted. "Mr. Ansell lists an address in Pennsylvania, and Mr. Wright lists one in Oregon. Because they live elsewhere, it is questionable whether Mssrs. Ansell and Wright have had sufficient contact with the District of Columbia to warrant this Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over them. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, no later than September 30, 2010, why this case should not be dismissed against Mr. Ansell and Mr. Wright for lack of personal jurisdiction."

The ruling speaks for itself, but there are three brief points to be made. First, Collyer's willingness to hear these arguments means nothing about how she will rule. She said the same thing when the EFF objected to the initial subpoenas; after a hearing, she allowed the subpoenas to proceed, though EFF could help draft a letter explaining the rights of those being targeted.

Second, even if Collyer accepts the argument over jurisdiction, US Copyright Group can simply filed its named lawsuits in various local jurisdictions. Collyer supports the current practice whereby groups can file massive Doe lawsuits in one court and obtain subpoenas and initial user identifications. Once people are identified, however, and their location known, the question is where they can be sued. Filing named lawsuits locally would certainly cost more money for the lawyers, though, and it's noteworthy that no actual named lawsuits have yet been filed, even though several of the subpoenas have been fully executed.

Third, Collyer also denied everyone's "motions to quash" today, largely because they all made inappropriate arguments (telling a court in a letter that "I didn't do it" is no reason to quash a subpoena; the actual defense comes later, after the identification is made). She also pointed out something we've been saying for months: don't send the court a letter with your name, address, and phone number if you're trying to remain anonymous.

"It must be noted that by filing their motions to quash on the public record of the Court, Messrs. Anselm and Wright and Ms. Buel provided the most critical information sought by the subpoenas — their names and addresses," said Collyer. "Their motions to quash could be deemed moot, at least with regard to this information."