With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". it dismisses a ease for lack of personal jurisdiction before the plaintiff has had an opportunity for jurisdictional discovery.' See, e.g., Edmond v. United States Postal Serv. Gen. Counsel, 949 F.2d 415 (D.C.Cir.1991). As CCC rejoins, however, in order to get jurisdictional discovery a plaintiff must have at least a good faith belief that such discovery will enable it to show that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. See, e.g., Hansen v. Neumueller GmbH, 163 F.R.D. 471, 476 (D.Del.1995) (concluding, after analysis of Rules 26 and 8, that plaintiff who responded to defendant’s affidavit with “a complete absence of jurisdictional facts” had not made threshold showing necessary to get jurisdictional discovery); Poe v. Babcock Int’l, plc, 662 F.Supp. 4, 7 (M.D.Pa.1985) (<HOLDING>); see also Ellis v. Fortune Seas, Ltd., 175

A: holding that because plaintiff has metdefendants affidavit evidence with mere speculation plaintiffs request for  jurisdictionall discovery  must be denied
B: holding that because plaintiff has met defendants affidavit evidence with mere speculation plaintiffs request for  jurisdictional discovery  must be denied
C: holding jurisdictional discovery not appropriate when plaintiff merely hopes to find statements in defendants affidavit not accurate but has not made counterallegations in its own affidavit
D: holding that mere speculation is insufficient to support a jury verdict
B.