With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at the very least authenticated and then subsequently rejected them. Thus, the district court was presented with minimal and primarily self-serving evidence from both BNI and appellees. On this record and at this early stage in the litigation, the district court’s finding that BNI did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that none of its officers or employees actually participated in the alleged commercial activity was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, it did not err in denying BNI’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. B. Discovery Order The immunity provided under the FSIA protects foreign sovereigns from all the burdens of litigation, including the general burden of responding to discovery requests. See Arriba Ltd. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Phoenix Consulting, Inc. v. Republic

A: holding that to relinquish its immunity a tribes waiver must be clear and not ambiguous and finding instructive the law governing waivers of immunity by foreign sovereigns internal quotation marks omitted
B: holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit
C: recognizing that foreign sovereigns possess a legitimate claim to immunity from discovery
D: recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit
C.