With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". cannot obtain under their own laws.” Id. at 262, 124 S.Ct. 2466. In a situation where the foreign tribunal restricts discovery, granting the application could undermine the statute’s objective. See, e.g., In re Application of Microsoft Corp., No. 06-10061-MLW, 2006 WL 1344091, *4 (D.Mass. April 19, 2006). Moreover, if there is reliable evidence that the foreign tribunal would not make any use of the requested material, it may be irresponsible for a district court to order discovery, especially where it involves substantial costs to the parties involved. In the present case, however, neither party has presented “authoritative proof’ regarding the receptivity of the ICC to the discovery materials requested. Cf. Euromepa, S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 F.3d 1095, 1099-100 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). 3. Conclusion Under the circumstances of this

A: holding pennsylvania foreign attachment procedures unconstitutional
B: holding that a federal court is obliged to determine its own jurisdiction for each case
C: holding that atca establishes cause of action for violations of international law but requiring the district court to perform a traditional choiceoflaw analysis to determine whether international law law of forum state or law of state where events occurred should provide substantive law in such an action
D: holding that a district court should not determine receptivity under  1782a simply by evaluating affidavits from international legal experts or engaging in its own inevitably superficial analysis of foreign law and procedures
D.