With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1 . While the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United Kingdom was limited by Intel regarding its implication that there is a foreign discoverability requirement (a factor that weakens NextEra’s position here), the remainder of the opinion remains Circuit precedent. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 253, 124 S.Ct. 2466; In re Consorcio Ecuatoriano, 685 F.3d at 998. 2 . The Second and Fifth Circuits interpreted § 1782 more narrowly in two pre-Intel decisions, with respect to purely private arbitrations. See Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann Int’l, 168 F.3d 880, 881 (5th Cir.1999) ("we elect to follow the Second Circuit’s recent decisions that § 1782 does not apply to private international arbitrations’’); Nat’l Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 165 F.3d 184, 190 (2nd Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). 3 . While the Eleventh Circuit had previously

A: holding that title ii does not apply to the states
B: holding that  1782 does not apply to private arbitral tribunals
C: holding that  1447c does not apply to counsel
D: holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively
B.