With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is frivolous because the Court has yet to resolve the question of immunity in the first instance. See, e.g., Apostol, 870 F.2d at 1339 (“a notice of appeal may be so baseless that it does not invoke appellate jurisdiction ... [where] the district judge has not finally resolved the question of immunity”). B. Limited Jurisdictional Discovery Does Not Infringe on Sovereign Immunity The Country of Curacao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands contend that any discovery, including limited jurisdictional discovery, infringes on their presumptive sovereign immunity. (DE # 216, at 3). Generally, sovereign immunity shields defendants not only from judgment, but from the litigation process, including discovery. See, e.g., Rubin v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, 637 F.3d 783, 785 (7th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). The instant situation, however, is an

A: holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law
B: holding district courts order permitting general asset discovery prior to ruling on alleged exception to the fsia infringed on sovereign immunity
C: recognizing the need for limited jurisdictional discovery to establish exception to the fsia
D: holding that licensing the exploitation of natural resources is a sovereign activity under the fsia
B.