Aug. 23, 2010). 3 The Superior Court Rules make the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37 applicable for the purposes of discovery in all civil cases. See SUPER. Ct. R. 39. 4 We note that the Superior Court held the Molloys to the wrong standard, requiring them to prove personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence without holding an evidentiary hearing. Instead, as we stated above, the Superior Court should only have required the Molloys to make a prima facie showing supported by competent evidence. Additionally, the trial court, after reciting the undisputed facts presented by both parties’ submissions, focused on what contacts the defendants lacked, instead of analyzing and considering what contacts BCBSAhad with the Virgin Islands. See Metcalfe, 566 F.3d at 332 (<HOLDING>). Notwithstanding these errors, because our
holding that proper focus is reasonableness of inquiry not frivolousness holding that the courts analysis should focus on the nature of the abuse injuries inflicted and the effect of both holding that the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction requires that the outofstate coconspirator was or should have been aware of the acts performed in the forum state in furtherance of the conspiracy holding that in determining whether a crime is a continuing offense the court must focus on the nature of the substantive offense and not on the specific characteristics of the conduct in the case at issue holding that the proper focus should be on whether the outofstate defendant engaged in any act that might provide the court with jurisdiction