Sony thinks that an unnamed defendant called Bushing resides in California but this person remains a Doe defendant, is not named as a defendant, and has not been served with process. Further, all evidence put forth by Sony regarding Bushing is improperly authenticated hearsay. This court should not rely on Sony‟s speculation of a Does defendant‟s place of residence to assert jurisdiction over a nonresident who is actually named with an address that has been identified, in New Jersey. Further evidence in this matter is found primarily on the internet.
Contrary to Sony‟ assertions, most of the physical evidence and Mr. Hotz himself, are located in the state of New Jersey. The bulk of Sony‟s claims regard evidence found on Mr. Hotz‟s media devices and in Mr. Hotz‟s testimony as a witness. Other than those items, the bulk of the evidence Sony puts forth may be found on the internet which is accessible just as easily in New Jersey as in California.
Sony relies on the unsubstantiated residency of the unnamed defendant Bushing as a basis for California being the best forum. However, Bushing has not been identified, named, served, or connected with Mr. Hotz in any way that would warrant bringing the only identifiable defendant out to California. If Bushing does exist and can be ascertained at a later date, Sony would have to amend the complaint to properly name him/her which has not occurred. Thus, New Jersey is an alternative forum that exists to provide Sony with adequate relief. If Sony can obtain jurisdiction by merely including a hypothetical defendant by the name of Bushing that may live in California, then any Plaintiff can file suit in California and obtain jurisdiction by adding Bushing as a defendant.
