140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998)). To determine whether to authorize discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference in a particular case, this district has applied a “good cause” standard. See Warner Bros. Records Inc. v. Does 1-6, 527 F.Supp.2d 1, 2 (D.D.C.2007) (“the Court finds that plaintiffs have made a showing of good cause for the discovery they seek”). In order to obtain jurisdictional discovery a “plaintiff must have at least a good faith belief that such discovery will enable it to show that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” Exquisite Multimedia, Inc., 2012 WL 177885, at *1 (quoting Caribbean Broad. Sys. Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless PLC, 148 F.3d 1080, 1090 (D.C.Cir.1998)). See also Exponential Biotherapies, Inc. v. Houthoff Buruma N.V., 638 F.Supp.2d 1, 11 (D.D.C.2009) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Kopff v. Battaglia, 425 F.Supp.2d 76,
holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law 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 not only must discovery requests be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to case but discovery requests may not be used as fishing expedition or to impose unreasonable discovery expenses on opposing party holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted recognizing trial courts decision on discovery issues implies a finding that requested discovery was not reasonably available