With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in its footnote 6, only unpublished cases of no prece-dential value (and one published case) from other jurisdictions. These cases present neither binding nor persuasive authority and are also inapplicable in that they reference different factual scenarios. Likewise, the mostly unpublished cases from other jurisdictions cited in the majority's footnote 16 as failing to find that online defamatory statements were directed at the forum state are neither binding nor persuasive authority, present different fact patterns, and are inapplicable. 3 . Wilkerson did not argue that exercise of personal jurisdiction would not be fair and just; therefore, it is not necessary to address this issue. See Glattly v. CMS Viron Corp., 177 S.W.3d 438, 450 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance Ltd.

A: holding that defendant bears burden of presenting compelling case that exercising jurisdiction over it would not be fair and just
B: holding that appellant bears burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence
C: holding that the defendant bears the burden under plainerror review
D: holding that a party seeking to seal a judicial record  bears the burden of overcoming  the compelling reasons standard
A.