With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". may be allowed limited discovery with respect to the jurisdictional issue; but until she has shown a reasonable basis for assuming jurisdiction, she is not entitled to any other discovery”); Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 283 (5th Cir.1982) (noting that “[w]hen a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, courts generally permit depositions confined to the issues raised in the motion to dismiss”); Hansen v. Neumueller GmbH, 163 F.R.D. 471, 473 (D.Del. 1995) (recognizing that “Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 permits liberal discovery of any facts which are relevant and not privileged” and further recognizing that “[t]his rule also applies where the plaintiff seeks discovery to establish personal jurisdiction”); United Mine Workers of Am. Int’l Union v. Arch Mineral Corp., 145 F.R.D. 3 (D.D.C.1992) (<HOLDING>). While discovery is available to ascertain

A: holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that speech was public concern
B: holding that although there was evidence of discrimination by the employer based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the employer had constructively discharged the plaintiff
C: recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary
D: holding that plaintiff was entitled to limited discovery on the question of defendants corporate structure where jurisdiction was claimed on alternate theories of single employer or alterego
D.