of lawful acts done ... in furtherance of ... [the qui tam] action.” Id. § 3730(h). Declining to intervene in Wood’s suit, the United States, on behalf of the Institute, moved to dismiss on the grounds of sovereign immunity. The district court denied Wood’s motion for discovery and an evidential hearing on the issue, concluded that the Institute “is an arm of the sovereign ... for purposes of [the Institute’s] claim of sovereign immunity under the [False Claims Act],” Wood, No. 98-1952, slip op. at 17, and dismissed the complaint. Wood now appeals, challenging the district court’s sovereign immunity determination as well as its denial of discovery. II. The Institute describes itself as an “agency or instrumentality” of the United States not subject to suit under 24 (3d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Lebron v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 513
holding that because the president of the united states appointed only eight out of the fifty members who sat on the red cross board of governors the plaintiff failed to satisfy the third prong of the lebron test therefore the red cross was not a government actor holding that the university of colorado is an arm of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity holding agencies of state government are part of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity holding that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the presence of a cross in a city park even though the cross was neither erected nor financially maintained by the government holding that red cross is not part of the government for the purpose of immunity from jury trials in personal injury suits although red cross is virtually  an arm of the federal government entitled to immunity for some purposes including state taxation internal quotation marks and citation omitted