ÿWPCÂq qSŒÙän}N¨# C•#>¬è?aö/#* a ¢táuá0mÛ½j^oög¸Á÷7Úl¨ƒÈÌÄšåU[͉¨W?½[àºî–)Ûù.,²½„±á°t6Öȇ¹m_p+¤!„Rþó"évn–ýñ*Ù¥œ÷Kæ½Go£”diÒ+ÙÏH-ü~G•³ã5ü~n @nqy€·ô°!»è€¶>0E­|—yn¤ HK8‹,xÅÜ:±ŠèÙÑ~¯Wºëë/hà@Ïe9\ý¤í³udŒ±k?§ºÂ®®ê5nû‹Æ¿:Ü/áÍe¥ƒÅˆè "J8\$à!¼ä§JF/p,ÆÝ%×Z‰PÝŶÜX®±àÊ¡q”^ô‰àÎï?Ì ¾C€Çt“Ó/"÷·üî÷8Œ}y3’jõ-8zJ\¬!6É,ÜË4R~.Ø0€½ãÙ[’è¹½ízGtà§Ÿáœõ*HêûªÁ"UšZ{˜ÍXcâaPŸH$5AõíY9CäØÚ&Ó€Ïfw™}ÑÌ„øÑ®·¥½>lä`@E(ï<øciN"Á=&ônãv®ÂËrñ¸Ý“|IUÕê’ÿGç$ !©=çh’åUSîO‹‰ôÞ^Ŭ‹„ö¬úôT0…#!F U >g %¥ 0(« U:Ó ·  ^ Ä w@Ð 4 $ 3 0D5 by 0D  bÅ EÍ mÏ Kæ æ Ž11Y¿¿~¬––»Bpýýwm!m!,ä"ä"(&&’8*8*8*8*8*8*œÊ1Ê1U>f4û¤4¤4NŸ6UB¡6bã6UNë6i97û¢;Ì=^i@—ÇA¼^CnFЈHµXPU> RjKR̵UµUU>W^¿W¿WU>Y»[Y[YU>_‰T_T_T_¿ÝcÝcÝcÝcÝcœeœeœ f f f f f f f f fÌ×ññññ׃!×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  ð  Ðà ` àSAB€also€argues€that€the€government€had€ample€opportunityÏduring€the€course€of€its€investigations€in€its€earlier€prosecutionÏof€Fitzgerald€and€in€the€present€case€to€obtain€informationÏrelevant€to€SAB's€forum€contacts.€€Herrington,€SAB€points€out,€wasÏinterviewed€at€length€by€United€States€law€enforcement€officials€inÏ1991€on€the€Isle€of€Man,€and€again€by€a€government€investigatorÏafter€the€initiation€of€proceedings€against€SAB.€€Fitzgerald,€whoÏhad€signed€a€plea€and€cooperation€agreement€with€the€government,Ïpresumably€was€available€to€provide€information€relevant€to€theÏjurisdictional€issues.€€Given€its€access€to€such€information,€SABÏcontends,€the€government€already€has€(or€should€have)€discoveredÏany€contacts€between€SAB€and€the€United€States.€€Ìà ` àThat€argument€is€weakened€significantly€by€the€fact€thatÏFitzgerald€died€shortly€after€the€forfeiture€order€was€entered€inÏ1994€ð!ð€before€the€events€leading€to€the€present€controversy€withÐ '`", Ðthe€bank€ð!ð€and€thus€hardly€could€have€aided€the€government€in€itsÐ ° Ðattempts€to€uncover€SAB's€forum€contacts.€€Herrington's€1991Ïinterview€likewise€predated€the€forfeiture€order€and€SAB's€failureÏto€comply.€€Accordingly,€the€government€had€no€reason€to€press€himÏregarding€his€or€SAB's€contacts€with€the€United€States.ññ׃@×ññññ׃#×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Rather,Ð ð @ Ðthe€interview€focused€on€facts€relevant€to€the€criminal€charges€ofÏconspiracy€and€money€laundering€that€later€were€brought€againstÏFitzgerald€and€several€other€individuals.€€A€governmentÏinvestigator€did€conduct€a€brief€telephone€interview€withÏHerrington€in€1998,€after€the€government€filed€its€complaint€in€theÏpresent€action.€€But€the€apparent€purpose€of€the€interview€was€toÏgather€information€demonstrating€IMB's€control€of€SAB,€not€toÏdetermine€the€extent€of€the€latter's€forum€contacts.€€In€any€event,Ïthat€interview€does€not€alter€the€government's€status€as€aÏð ðstrangerðð€to€SAB€within€the€meaning€of€òòSurpitskióó,€362€F.2d€at€255,Ð à Ðand€its€progeny.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòWhittaker€Corp.óó,€482€F.2d€at€1086Ð  p Ð(noting€that€jurisdictional€discovery€is€appropriate€where,€òòinteróóÐ °  Ðòòaliaóó,€a€party€is€ð ðsomewhat€unfamiliar€with€his€adversaryðð);€òòAm.Ð @" ÐExpress€Int'l,€Inc.óó€v.€òòMndez„Capellnóó,€889€F.2d€1175,€1181€(1stÐ Ð $ ÐCir.€1989)€(finding€that€parties€were€not€ð ðtotal€stranger[s]ðð€underÐ `"°& ÐòòSurpitskióó€where€they€had€a€ð ðlong€commercial€relationshipðð).€Ð ° ÐIndeed,€the€government's€attempt€to€investigate€only€underscoresÏthat€its€relationship€with€the€bank€is€an€artifact€of€theÏforfeiture€order.€€While€Fitzgerald€had€business€dealings€with€SAB,Ïand€so€was€not€a€stranger€to€the€bank,€the€government€had€no€suchÏongoing€relationship.Ìà ` àFinally,€SAB€argues€that€the€government€did€not€meet€itsÏburden€of€explaining€to€the€district€court€the€discovery€sought€andÏits€value.€€We€have€said€that€plaintiffs€must€ð ðexplain[]€.€.€.€howÏdiscovery,€if€allowed,€would€bear€on€the€narrow€jurisdictionalÏissue.ðð€€òòDynamic€Imageóó,€221€F.3d€at€39.€€In€opposing€SAB's€motionÐ P  Ðto€dismiss,€the€government€articulated€the€theories€of€general€andÏspecific€jurisdiction€that€it€was€trying€to€prove€and€requestedÏdiscovery€of€ð ðany€information€regarding€the€existence,€nature€andÏscope€of€SAB€contacts€with€the€United€States€and€United€StatesÏpersons.ðð€€As€the€majority€points€out,€only€on€appeal€did€theÏgovernment€fully€explain€the€types€of€contacts€it€hopes€toÏdiscover.€€The€majority€is€correct€to€disregard€specifics€notÏpresented€below.€€In€my€view,€however,€the€government€adequatelyÏexplained€to€the€district€court€the€purpose€of€its€request€forÏdiscovery,€and€its€description€of€the€contacts€it€hoped€to€find,Ïwhile€bare,€meets€the€diligence€standard.ññ׃ƒ×ññññ׃%×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€After€all,€it€isÐ €%Ð * Ðobvious€that€the€government€seeks€evidence€of€physical,€telephone,Ïor€mail€contacts€that€are€lacking€in€the€current€record.Ìà ` àIn€short,€the€government€was€a€diligent€plaintiff€with€aÏcolorable€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòSurpitskióó,€362€F.2d€at€255;€òòSunview€Condo.óó,Ð ` ° Ð116€F.3d€at€965.€€If€given€the€opportunity€for€appropriateÏdiscovery,€it€may€well€be€able€to€make€out€a€prima€facie€showing€ofÏspecific€jurisdiction.€€The€district€court€did€not€recognize€thatÏpossibility,€however,€because€it€refused€to€treat€the€in„forumÏeffects€of€SAB's€allegedly€tortious€activities€as€a€jurisdictionalÏcontact.€€As€a€result,€the€court€ended€its€specific€jurisdictionalÏanalysis€with€the€relatedness€element,€and€summarily€denied€theÏgovernmentððs€request€for€discovery.€€Based€as€it€was€on€a€mistakenÏapplication€of€òòCalderóó,€that€denial€was€ð ðplainly€wrong,ðð€òòCrockeróó€v.Ð pÀ ÐòòHilton€Int'l€Barb.,€Ltd.óó,€976€F.2d€797,€801€(1st€Cir.€1992).ññ׃=x×ññññ׃'x×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô_ÔòòSeeóóÐ P ÐòòRuiz„Trocheóó,€161€F.3d€at€86.€€Moreover,€the€denial€caused€theÐ ° Ðgovernment€ð ðsubstantial€prejudice.ðð€€òòCrockeróó,€976€F.2d€at€801.€Ð @ ÐWithout€discovery,€the€government's€case€ends.Ìà@üü(ìàò òIII.ó óˆÐ ` ° Ðà ` àBecause€I€conclude€that€the€district€court€erred€inÏrefusing€to€allow€jurisdictional€discovery€with€respect€to€theÏgovernment's€claims€against€Ô_ÔSABÔ_Ô,€I€would€also€vacate€the€dismissalÏof€the€case€against€Ô_ÔIMBÔ_Ô.€€The€district€court€determined€that€theÏgovernment€had€failed€adequately€to€plead€alter€ego€liabilityÏagainst€Ô_ÔIMBÔ_Ô,€and€that€it€had€not€established€a€sufficient€basis€forÏpersonal€jurisdiction.€€We€said€in€òòSwiss€IIóó€that€any€ruling€onÐ  ð Ðalter€ego€liability€was€ð ðpremature,ðð€because€the€jurisdictionalÏquestion€should€be€resolved€before€reaching€the€merits€of€the€case.€Ï191€F.3d€at€46€(citing€òòSteel€Co.óó€v.€òòCitizens€for€a€Better€Ô_ÔEnv'tÔ_Ôóó,Ð P  Ð523€U.S.€83,€118€(1998);€òòÔ_ÔRuhrgasÔ_Ô€AGóó€v.€òòMarathon€Oil€Co.óó,€526€U.S.Ð à0 Ð574€(1999)).€€The€factors€discussed€in€òòSwiss€IIóó€continue€to€weighÐ pÀ Ðin€favor€of€that€approach€here.Ìà ` àAs€the€majority€explains,€personal€jurisdiction€over€Ô_ÔIMBÔ_ÔÏis€contingent€on€the€government's€ability€to€make€out€a€prima€facieÏcase€for€jurisdiction€over€SAB.€€The€district€court€ruled€on€theÏlatter€question€without€having€allowed€discovery€against€Ô_ÔSABÔ_Ô€toÏproceed.€€I€would€remand€the€case€so€that€such€discovery€could€takeÐ Ð% !* Ðplace.€€If€the€government,€with€the€benefit€of€jurisdictionalÏdiscovery,€were€able€to€establish€a€prima€facie€case€ofÏjurisdiction€over€Ô_ÔSABÔ_Ô,€the€district€court€would€then€have€toÏreassess€the€jurisdictional€status€of€Ô_ÔIMBÔ_Ô€and€its€alter€ego€ruling,Ïas€well€as€any€discovery€issues€relating€to€Ô_ÔIMBÔ_Ô.Ìññ