from the Caymans to New York was attached as an exhibit to the declaration. Nigeria argues that the district court erred in considering both the errata sheet and the declaration. According to Nigeria, the errata sheet was neither timely nor proper under FRCP 30(e), and the declaration was a sham “generated solely to create an issue of fact.” Nigeria’s evidentiary arguments rest on a misunderstanding of the procedures a district court must follow in making a juris dictional ruling under the FSIA. Summary judgment procedures do not control. Rather, where a plaintiff alleges that his claim is based on a foreign state’s commercial acts, the defendant has the initial burden of establishing that it is a sovereign state. See Export Group v. Reef Industries, 54 F.3d 1466, 1470 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Gates v. Victor Fine Foods, 54 F.3d 1457,
holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it recognizing exceptions to immunity holding the agency is entitled to use its own methodology unless it is irrational holding that defendant was entitled to immunity because it established that it was an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state unless one of the fsias exceptions applied