discovery into Westchester’s fraudulent intent and that neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the caselaw permits a district court to structure discovery in this manner. We disagree. A district court has wide latitude in structuring discovery and its rulings will not be overturned absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion. See McMullen v. Bay Ship Mgmt., 335 F.3d 215, 217 (3d Cir.2003). Here, the District Court did not exceed the permissible bounds of discretion in requiring Policyholders to make a preliminary showing that they can satisfy other elements of their fraud claim — namely "representation” and “reasonable reliance” — before permitting discovery into fraudulent intent. See Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass., 107 F.3d 1026 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, even if we characterize the District
holding that the district court did not exceed the permissible bounds of discretion by requiring a showing that the aba considered plaintiffs salaries in denying accreditation before permitting discovery into the abas development and implementation of the faculty salary standard holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances holding that the trial court did not exceed its discretion in striking the amended complaint where the plaintiffs had learned of the facts underlying the new allegations six months before they attempted to amend holding that the standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence is the same as the standard for denying a motion for a directed verdict holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to extend discovery where no effort was made to explain why the requested discovery could not have taken place within the original discovery period