With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 101 (2d Cir.2002) (quoting Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C.Cir.1977)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 . E.g., United States v. Stein, 452 F.Supp.2d 281, 285-86 (S.D.N.Y.2006); see In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., No. 04 MD 1653(LAK), 2007 WL 2197057, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2007). 5 . United States v. Constr. Prods. Res., Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 468-69 (2d Cir.1996). 6 . Dynegy Midstream Servs. v. Trammochem, 451 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir.2006). 7 . Nat'l Eng'g, 13 F.3d at 95. 8 . Constr. Prods. Res., Inc., 73 F.3d at 469. 9 . 385 F.2d 1017 (2d Cir.1967). 10 . Id. at 1018 (drawing analogy to the “appealability of an order in aid of foreign letters rogatory”); see also In re Application of Silvia Gianoli Aldunate, 3 F.3d 54, 56-57 (2d Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>) (citing In re Matter of Letters Rogatory, 385

A: holding that a denial of an order to quash a subpoena not directed to a movant was a final order if the movant had no further opportunity to challenge the subpoena
B: holding that an order denying a motion to vacate a  1782 order and denying a motion to quash the subpoena was immediately appealable
C: holding that overruling of motion to quash does not affect substantial right and is therefore not final appealable order
D: holding that denial of motion to vacate discovery order and to quash subpoena issued pursuant to 28 usc  1782 constitutes final appealable decision
D.