With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 690 F.Supp. 317 (D.C.N.J.1988) (direct mail solicitation in New Jersey confers personal jurisdiction). In light of CCC’s uncontested affidavit, therefore, the court was justified in denying further discovery. CBS argues that it could not have made more specific allegations without jurisdictional discovery and that it never had the opportunity to take such discovery. Further, CBS points to cases in this circuit suggesting that a district court abuses its discretion wh . 308, 312 (S.D.Ind.1997) (citing cases and holding “it is reasonable for a court ... to expect the plaintiff to show a colorable basis for jurisdiction before subjecting the defendant to intrusive and burdensome discovery”); International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., v. Skibs A/S Hidlefjord, 63 F.R.D. 85 (S.D.N.Y.1973) (<HOLDING>). To be sure, CBS had no obligation to make

A: holding that because plaintiff has met defendants affidavit evidence with mere speculation plaintiffs request for  jurisdictional discovery  must be denied
B: holding affidavit insufficient to support probable cause when one cannot learn from the affidavit when the past activities occurred and when the observations were made
C: holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit
D: holding jurisdictional discovery not appropriate when plaintiff merely hopes to find statements in defendants affidavit not accurate but has not made counterallegations in its own affidavit
D.