be “circumspect” in allowing discovery before the plaintiff has established that the court has jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign defendant under the FSIA. Id. at 176-77. But NML seeks discovery from a defendant over which the district court indisputably had jurisdiction. Thus, the concerns voiced in Rafidain I are not present and our precedents relating to jurisdictional discovery are inapplicable. The second principal reason for holding that the Discovery Order does not infringe on Argentina’s sovereign immunity is that the subpoenas at issue were directed at BOA and BNA — commercial banks that have no claim to sovereign immunity, or to any other sort of immunity or privilege. Thus, the banks’ compliance with subpoenas will cause Argentina no burden and no expense. See id. at 177 (<HOLDING>). To the extent Argentina expresses concern
holding principal liable to third party for tort of agent despite lack of privity between principal and third party holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant holding that discovery requests directed at nonimmune party did not infringe on the sovereign immunity of a third party even if the third party retained a colorable claim of immunity holding that sovereign immunity also applies to cross claims and third party claims holding that a third party holding legal title to property is a necessary party in an action for equitable distribution