With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". facts, I find it necessary only to affirm the denial of International Paper Company’s motion to dismiss. I — I Even were I to reach the issue of the state law applicable in this case, I would not interpret the Act to require a court sitting in the State where the injury has occurred (affected State) to apply the nuisance law of the State from which the pollution emanates (source State). Nothing in the Act preempts the usual two-step analysis undertaken by federal district courts to determine which state tort law should be applied in interstate tort suits. First, the district court must apply the conflict-of-law rules of the State in which the court sits. See Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. Challoner, 423 U. S. 3, 4 (1975); Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U. S. 487, 496 (1941) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the Vermont District Court should apply

A: holding that the party asserting work product protection has the burden of establishing that the doctrine applies
B: holding that rookerfeldman doctrine applies only where state court appeals process has run its full course
C: recognizing doctrine
D: holding that erie doctrine applies to conflictoflaw rules
D.