reasons. First, they raise it too late. When the government moved to stay discovery in the district court, the plaintiffs did not file an opposition. See D.P.R. Local Rule 311.5 (stating that “[i]f the respondent opposes a motion, he or she shall file a response within ten (10) days after service of the motion”). Nor did they present in their opposition to the dismissal motion any developed argumentation as to how additional discovery might advance their cause. Consequently, they forfeited the point. See United States v. Slade, 980 F.2d 27, 30 (1st Cir.1992) (“It is a bedrock rule that when a party has not presented an argument to the district court, she may not unveil it in the court of appeals.”); see also Sunview Condo. Ass’n v. Flexel Int’l, Ltd., 116 F.3d 962, 964 (1st Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). In all events, the plaintiffs have not shown
holding that plaintiffs who fail to preserve their rights below cannot appeal on the ground that they were denied jurisdictional discovery holding that while as a general matter discovery should be freely permitted  j jurisdictional discovery is justified only if the plaintiff reasonably demonstrates that it can supplement its jurisdictional allegations through discovery holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal holding that the defendant objected to the evidence on only one ground thus he failed to preserve the additional grounds presented on appeal holding that because plaintiff has met defendants affidavit evidence with mere speculation plaintiffs request for  jurisdictional discovery  must be denied