may be allowed limited discovery with respect to the jurisdictional issue; but until she has shown a reasonable basis for assuming jurisdiction, she is not entitled to any other discovery”); Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 283 (5th Cir.1982) (noting that “[w]hen a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, courts generally permit depositions confined to the issues raised in the motion to dismiss”); Hansen v. Neumueller GmbH, 163 F.R.D. 471, 473 (D.Del. 1995) (recognizing that “Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 permits liberal discovery of any facts which are relevant and not privileged” and further recognizing that “[t]his rule also applies where the plaintiff seeks discovery to establish personal jurisdiction”); United Mine Workers of Am. Int’l Union v. Arch Mineral Corp., 145 F.R.D. 3 (D.D.C.1992) (<HOLDING>). While discovery is available to ascertain
holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that speech was public concern holding that plaintiff was entitled to limited discovery on the question of defendants corporate structure where jurisdiction was claimed on alternate theories of single employer or alterego recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary holding that although there was evidence of discrimination by the employer based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the employer had constructively discharged the plaintiff holding that under north carolina law a corporate parent cannot be held liable for the acts of its subsidiary unless the corporate structure is a sham