1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United Stat es District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-1509

___________ Robert Steinbuch, *
* Plaintiff - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Jessica Cutler; Hyperion Books; Disney * Publishing Worldwide; Home Box * Office; Time Warner; *
* Defendants - Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: January 14, 2008 Filed: March 6, 2008

___________ Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MURPHY, Circuit Judge, and JARVEY, 1 District Judge.

___________ MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Robert Steinbuch brought this action against Jessica Cutler and several corporate entities for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the publication by Hype rion Books of Cutler' s sexually explicit novel and the potential de velopment of a future televi sion series based on it. The2 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

3 Steinbuch then filed a claim against Cutle r in federal bankrupt cy court for the Northern District of New York. His earlie r action against Cutler in federal district court in Washington, D.C. has also been stayed.

4 Steinbuch claims in his brief that he has been a resident of Arkansas since June 1, 2005 and provided an employment offer letter from the university as supporting evidence; his complaint does not allege wh en he moved to Arkansas. The district court found that Steinbuch had not yet beco me a resident by the time the novel was published in June 2005. -2- district court 2dismissed Steinbuch's action agai nst Cutler, Hyperion Books, and Disney Publishing Worldwide for lack of personal jurisdiction and against Home Box Office and Time Warner for failure to stat e a claim. Steinbuch appealed, but his appeal of the dismissal of Cutler was stayed after she filed a bankruptcy petition in New York. 3 We affirm except as to Hyperion Books.

I.

Robert Steinbuch is currently a law profe ssor at the University of Arkansas in Little Rock. Prior to assuming that position in the summer of 2005, 4he worked in Washington, D.C. While serving as couns el to then Senator Mike DeWine on the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Steinbuch engaged in a sexual relationship with fellow staff member Jessica Cutler. Unbeknownst to him, Cutler was chronicling physical encounters with him and five other men in her internet weblog entitled The Washingtonienne . The weblog, a graphic online diary which achieved particular notoriety in Washington, D.C. when poste d in May 2004, describes intimate details of Cutler's relationship with Steinbuch and her other lovers . Steinbuch was not identified by name in the weblog; he was generally refe rred to by his initials "RS" although Cutler at least once called him "Rob." She also revealed some personal information, including his place of employm ent, religious affiliation, and physical-3- attributes. ("RS looks just like George Clooney when he takes off his glasses."). Steinbuch does not dispute that he had a brie f liaison with Cutler but denies particular statements she made in her weblog about so me of his alleged sexual preferences and practices, including spanking and use of handcuffs.

Approximately one year after her weblog posting, Cutler authored a fictionalized book based on its content. Like the weblog, her novel is entitled The Washingtonienne and describes a young woman's trysts with numerous men in Washington, D.C., including a Congressional committee staff lawyer. The novel concerns fictional characters and does not refer to Steinbuch by name or by his initials. It was published in June 2005 by Hyperion Books (Hyperion), an imprint of Buena Vista Books Inc. (Buena Vista), whic h is a wholly owned subsidiary of Disney Publishing Worldwide (Disney). The nove l was distributed th roughout the United States by Time Warner Book Group, Inc ., now Hachette B ook Group, USA. Time Warner Book Group, Inc. was a subsidiary of Time Warner.

Steinbuch filed his complaint in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, alleging invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress -- the tort of outrage -- for th e book's graphic description of his sexual relationship with Cutler. In addition to Cutler, he sued the publisher, its parent corporation Disney, as well as Home Box Office (HBO) and its parent Time Warner. HBO has secured an option to develop a television series based on the book.

None of the defendants reside, are inco rporated, or have their principal place of business in Arkansas. Cutler, Hyperion, and Disney argued in the district court that they lacked the requisite minimum contacts with Arkansas and were therefore entitled to dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(2). Time Warner and HBO filed a Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) motion for failu re to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In response to these motions , Steinbuch petitioned the district court for a three month extension to file a reply. Defendants asked the c ourt to stay discovery pending its ruling on their dismissal motions because they wanted to avoid potentially-4- broad discovery requests and the risk of waiving their jurisdictional claims before their motions were ruled on. Steinbuch f iled a motion opposing a stay of discovery; the motion made no explicit request to conduct limited discovery tailored to the specific issue of personal jurisdiction. The district court allowed Steinbuch an extension of about two months to file his reply, but granted the defense motion to stay discovery until ruling on the motions.

The district court noted that all the corporate defendants sold their products or services in Arkansas and analyzed whethe r it could exercise personal jurisdiction over them under either specific or general personal jurisdiction. It found that The Washingtonienne and other books published by Hyperi on were being sold in Arkansas bookstores. There was no evidence that H yperion had mounted a large advertising campaign, and the court observed that onl y about fifty copies had been sold to wholesale and retail accounts in Arkansas. The district court concluded that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over H yperion would be unwarranted because its contacts with Arkansas were too attenuated and the injury to Steinbuch did not occur as a result of its activities directed at the forum state, especially since Steinbuch had moved to Arkansas only after publication of the novel.

The action against Disney was also dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because it is a separate corporate en tity from Hyperion and played no role in publishing the novel. Since Steinbuch had faile d to rebut Disney's affidavits that it had no direct involvement in the novel's publi cation, the district court concluded that he had not made a prima facie case that Disney had engaged inconduct causing his injury or that it maintained the requisite contacts with Arkansas to be subject to personal jurisdiction.

In concluding that no personal jurisdic tion could be exerci sed over defendants, the district court noted Arkansas' relativel y small interest in the dispute since the claims did not arise in the state and the alleged injuries occurred prior to Steinbuch's move to Arkansas. The court also suggestedthat the District of Columbia, where the-5- novel's events took place and where potential witnesses resided, would serve as a more appropriate forum.

The district court also granted the dismissal motions of HBO and its corporate parent Time Warner for failure to st ate a claim for relief under Arkansas law, concluding that the complaint offered no i ndication that they had invaded Steinbuch's privacy, committed outrage, or ha d breached a duty toward him.

On appeal Steinbuch asks us to reverse the district court's dismissal of his claims against Hyperion and Disney for lack of personal jurisdiction and against HBO and Time Warner for failure to state a claim. He also appeals the district court's stay of discovery pending its ruling on the motions to dismiss.

II.

We review a dismissal for lack of pe rsonal jurisdiction denovo, and the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case. Johnson v. Woodcock , 444 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 2006). To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must state sufficient facts in th e complaint to support a reasonable inference that defendants may be subjected to jurisdic tion in the forum state. Dever v. Hentzen Coatings, Inc. , 380 F.3d 1070, 1072 (8th Cir. 2004). The Arkansas long arm statute confers jurisdiction to the fullest constituti onal extent, limiting our inquiry to whether such an exercise of jurisdiction w ould comport with due process. Id. at 1073; see also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-4-101(B)(1999).

Due process requires "minimum contacts" between a nonresident defendant and the forum state, such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial ju stice." World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson , 444 U.S. 286, 291-92 (1980). The mini mum contact inquiry focuses on whether the defendant purposely availed itsel f of the privilege of conducting activities-6- within the forum state and thereby invoked th e benefits and protections of its laws. Hanson v. Denckla , 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958).

The Supreme Court has recognized two theories for evaluating personal jurisdiction: general and specific jurisdicti on. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall , 466 U.S. 408, 414-15 (1984). A state ma y exercise general jurisdiction if a defendant has carried on in the forum state a continuous and systematic, even if limited, part of its general bus iness; in such circumstances the alleged injury need not have any connection with the forum stat e. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. , 465 U.S. 770, 779 (1984). The plaintiff must make a prima facie showing, however, that the defendant's contacts were not "random," "fortuitous," or "attenuated." Id. at 774. Specific jurisdiction on the other hand is appr opriate only if the injury giving rise to the lawsuit occurred within or had some c onnection to the forum state, meaning that the defendant purposely directed its activitie s at the forum state and the claim arose out of or relates to those activities. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985).

To evaluate the sufficiency of a defendant’s contacts, we consider five factors, affording the first three primary importance: 1) the nature and quality of the defendant's contacts with the forum state; 2) the quantity of such contacts; 3) the relation of the cause of action to the contact s; 4) the interests of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents; and 5) the convenience of the parties. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Maples Industries, Inc. , 97 F.3d 1100, 1102 (8th Cir. 1996). The third factor -- the relation of the cause of action to the contacts -- applies only in the specific jurisdiction context and is immaterial in a general jurisdictional inquiry. See Johnson , 444 F.3d at 956.

A.

Hyperion contends that it maintained no contacts with Arkansas which would justify the exercise of either theory of pe rsonal jurisdiction and asserts that no specific-7- jurisdiction is warranted because this litigation did not result from injuries arising out of or relating to Hyperion's activities in Arkansas. See Burlington Industries, Inc. , 97 F.3d at 1103. Steinbuch responds that sp ecific jurisdiction exists over Hyperion, suggesting that he suffered harm due to th e publisher's activities directed at Arkansas which resulted in the purchase of Cutler's novel by state residents. To sustain his argument, Steinbuch would have to show that Hyperion knew that "the brunt of the injury would be felt by [him] in the Stat e in which [he] lives and works" and intentionally targeted the forum state. See Calder v. Jones , 465 U.S. 783, 789-90 (1984). This is an unlikely proposition, since the publication of The Washingtonienne occurred around the same time as Steinbuch's move to Arkansas.

While Steinbuch claims that he became an Arkansas resident just prior to the publication of the novel and produced an employment offer letter from the University of Arkansas to begin his position on June 1, 2005, he failed to assert in his first and amended complaints that he resided in Arkansas at the time and provided no affidavit to the district court declaring his date of residency in the stat e. Hyperion refuted Steinbuch's residency claim by pointing to hi s failure to allege this fact in his complaints. Steinbuch's cause of action app ears to have no direct connection with the forum state or to have arisen out of or re late to Hyperion's activ ities in Arkansas. See Burger King Corp. , 471 U.S. at 472. None of the ev ents described in the novel took place in Arkansas, and Steinbuch has failed to show that Hyperion's contacts with Arkansas and the relationship between hi s cause of action and those contacts are sufficient to justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction. See Burlington Industries, Inc. , 97 F.3d at 1102.

Hyperion asserts that no general jurisd iction exists because it did not conduct business in the forum state as defined by Arkansas statute in Ark. Code. Ann § 4-27- 1501 (a foreign corporation may not transact business in Arkansas until it obtains a certificate of authority from th e secretary of state). Hyperion also argues that it is not responsible for the distribution of its books and that it lacks formalized ties to Arkansas such as a bank account, a registered agent, a corporate offi ce, or real estate.-8- See, e.g. , Dever , 380 F.3d at 1074 (noting absence of these factors in finding a lack of general jurisdiction); but seeVandelune v. 4B Elev ator Components Unlimited , 148 F.3d 943, 948 (8th Cir. 1998) (absence of th ese factors, while significant, is not determinative on question of market pres ence). Steinbuch counters that Hyperion purposely availed itself of the protections of the forum state laws by continuously and deliberately exploiting the Arkansas market. See Keeton , 465 U.S. at 781. In support of his argument, Steinbuch produced a list of approximately thirty different Hyperion book titles available in a particular Arkansas bookstore, affidavits by several individuals who purchased Cutler's novel in Arkansas, and an affidavit declaring that The Washingtonienne is available at all major bookstores in Arkansas, as well as through the state's central public library system.

In finding a lack of general jurisdicti on, the district court emphasized the relatively small number of sales of The Washingtonienne in Arkansas and the lack of a substantial advertising campaign for the book in the state. In a general jurisdiction inquiry, however, we must look not to the sales of that particular novel but to Hyperion's general presence in Arkansas. See id. at 779-81 (nonresident magazine publisher subject to general personal juri sdiction for alleged defamation because it carried out part of its general business in the forum state and benefitted from the magazine sales there). The percentage of a company's sales in a given state is generally not relevant to th e general jurisdiction analysis as the focus lies on whether the contacts are continuous and systematic. See Lakin v. Prudential Securities, Inc. , 348 F.3d 704, 709 (8th Cir. 2003). Since the affidavits by individuals who purchased The Washingtonienne in Arkansas imply that Hype rion has profited from the sale of its books in the state, the inquiry centers on whether the publisher's forum contacts are such that it purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in the state and should therefore have reasonably antic ipated being haled into court. See Johnson , 444 F.3d at 955.

While mere placement of a product into th e stream of commerce, without more, is insufficient to constitute purposeful availment, Dever , 380 F.3d at 1075, we have-9- recognized a state's exercise of jurisdicti on over a seller who delivered its products to a regional distributor with an expectation that the distributor would penetrate the forum state. SeeVandelune , 148 F.3d at 948. Seeking to demonstrate that it exercised no influence over the distributi on of its books, Hyperion disclosed to the district court its agreement with distribut or Time Warner Book Group, Inc. Although the agreement granted the distributor the exclusive right and sole responsibility for distribution of the books throughout the United States and did not explicitly target specific states or regions, it did provide for written monthly sales reports to the publisher. The fact that it contracted to receive monthly sales reports, especially if these reports were to display sales on a state by state basi s, would permit an inference that Hyperion had reasonable expectations and knowledge that its products were going to be offered in the Arkansas market. See Barone v. Rich Bros. Display Fireworks Co. , 25 F.3d 610, 613 (8th Cir. 1994) (foreign fireworks producer's alleged lack of knowledge of distribution "defies reason and c ould aptly be labeled 'willful'"); but see Guiness Import Co. v. Mark VII Distributors, Inc. , 153 F.3d 607, 615 (8th Cir. 1998) (foreign beer manufacturer whose title over th e beer passed to importer in Jamaica and who exercised no control over selection of di stributor in the United States not subject to jurisdiction in Minnesota).

There is also evidence, as a result of Hyperion's disclosure of the distribution agreement, that the publisher was actively involved in marketing plans and promotions of books placed in stores. Hyperion's distribution agreement provides that "Publisher will consult with Distributor withrespect to establishing marketing plans, sales forecasting, determini ng appropriate print runs, and planning advertising and promotional campaigns for the Books, and Publisher will make and notify Distributor of final decisions." See Sondergard v. Miles Inc. , 985 F.2d 1389, 1397 (8th Cir. 1993) (noting that cold medicine manufacturer did not limit where its products may be purchased and was therefore subject to gene ral jurisdiction). It thus appears that Hyperion may have been involved in the promotion and marketing of its books and might have reasonably expected their distribution in Arkansas.-10- Although carrying less weight than the nature, quality, and quantity of Hyperion's contacts with the forum, other rele vant factors are the in terest of the state in protecting its residents and the need to ensure that a suit in the forum would not offend defendant's due pr ocess rights. Dever , 380 F.3d at 1074. Although Steinbuch is a relatively new resident, Arkansas has an interest in protecting his privacy rights as it is the forum where he would appear to suffer the most direct effects of Hyperion's activities. Cf. Lakin , 348 F.3d at 713 (state has significan t interest in giving insolvent insurance companies a forum to litigate). The burden of litigation to a corporate publisher such as Hyperion, which is inco rporated in California and derives profits from the sale of its books across the country, would not appear to be so great as to require dismissal. SeeBurger King Corp. , 471 U.S. at 473-74 (unfairness could arise if parties which purposefully derive benefit from interstate activities were allowed to escape from consequences arising from those activities).

Steinbuch claims that by granting a stay of discovery pending its rulings on the motions to dismiss his complaint, the district court wrongly deprived him of the opportunity to support his jurisdictional argum ent. We employ an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a district c ourt's denial of discovery. Lakin , 348 F.3d at 713. On the basis of the currentrecord which reflects that Steinbuch offered documentary evidence, and not merely speculations or conclusory allegati ons, about Hyperion's contacts with Arkansas, the district court should not have dismissed his action against Hyperion without permitting him to take some jurisdictional discovery to establish whether general personal jurisdic tion would be justified. SeeDever , 380 F.3d at 1074 n.1.

At this point, however, Steinbuch has not adduced sufficient proof for a prima facie case of general personal jurisdicti on over Hyperion. He has not shown enough specifics about the quality and quantity of Hyperion's contacts with the state or the publisher's exploitation of the Arkansas market. We therefore remand Steinbuch's claim against Hyperion for an opportunity fo r tailored discovery to elicit whether its-11- contacts with Arkansas were so continuous and systematic as to warrant general personal jurisdiction over the publisher.

B.

Appellee Disney asserts that it has no c onnection to Steinbuch's claim, refuting a basis for either theory of personal juri sdiction. Challenging Steinbuch's assertion that it should be responsible for his in juries inflicted by Buena Vista's Hyperion imprint, Disney argues that it did not contract with Cutler, did not publish the novel, and was not party to the distribution agr eement. Affidavits by Hyperion and Disney executives stated that while Di sney is Buena Vista's parent, they are distinct corporate entities with separate bank accounts and books and records and Disney does not control the day to day affairs of Buena Vista. Disney ma intained no registered agent, bank accounts, telephone listings, real estate , or offices in Arkansas at the time Steinbuch filed suit. Steinbuc h contends, however, that Di sney engages in continuous and systematic business activity in Arkansas , pointing to its cable television programs in the state and the registered agent for process Disney installed in September 2006.

Before a party may obtain personal juri sdiction over a parent company, the plaintiff must show that the parent dominates and controls the subsidiary; mere ownership of subsidiary is insufficient to ju stify personal jurisdiction. Epps v. Stewart Information Services Corp. , 327 F.3d 642, 648-49 (8th Cir. 2003). Whether a subsidiary is subject to personal jurisdiction in the state has no effect on the jurisdictional inquiry regarding its parent. Id. at 649 ("A corporation is not doing business in a state merely by the presen ce of its wholly owned subsidiary.").

Steinbuch failed to meet his burden of proving jurisdiction by providing any affidavits, testimony, or docum ents in response to Disney's affidavit denying control over Hyperion and challenging personal jurisdiction. SeeDever , 380 F.3d at 1073. Steinbuch merely submitted various ne wspaper articles which referred to Hyperion/Disney as publisher of The Washingtonienne . The articles did not establish-12- that Disney controls Hyperion and therefor e did nothing to refute Disney's affidavit. Steinbuch additionally pointed to the distribution agreement governing the sales and marketing of the book as a basis for personal jurisdiction, citing to it as evidence that Disney published the novel under the Hyperion imprint, since the agreement includes a footnote on the botto m of each page that reads "CFR/Disney Agreement.12.04.03(v5)." Even a cursor y look at the distribution agreement, however, shows that it was entered into by the distributor Time Warner Book Group, Inc. and three publishers, not including Di sney Publishing Worldwide. The plain language of the agreement excludes "books published by Publisher's parent company, The Walt Disney Company, and companie s which are owned or controlled by The Walt Disney Company (other than Publis her)." The distribution agreement thus cannot serve to establish personal jurisdiction over Disney.

By not furnishing factual evidence in response to Disney's denial of continuous and systematic contacts in the state, Stei nbuch fell short of establishing a prima facie case of general jurisdiction. Whether so me arm of The Walt Di sney Company media empire offers television programming in Arkansas does not determine the propriety of personal jurisdiction over appellee Disney Publishing Worldwide. The appointment of an agent for service of pr ocess in Arkansas o ccurred more than one year after the publication of The Washingtonienne and after Disney's motion to dismiss, and is but one f actor in undertaking the mi nimum contacts inquiry; it is insufficient by itself to prove a prima facie case. See Pecoraro v. Sky Ranch For Boys, Inc. , 340 F.3d 558, 562 (8th Cir. 2003) ("Mi nimum contacts must exist either at time the cause of action arose, the time the suit is filed, or within a reasonable period of time immediately prior to the filing of the lawsuit.").

In light of Steinbuch's failure to show that Disney had a connection with the dispute, we see no justification for the exercise of specific jurisdiction. SeeCalder , 465 U.S. at 788 (specific jurisdiction inquiry focuses on "the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation" ). Since Steinbuch offered no credible evidence that Disney had any involvement in the publication or distribution of the-13- novel and instead made merely conclusory a llegations about Disney's alleged role, the district court did not err in dismissing his claims for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a stay of discovery against Disney because Steinbuc h failed to rebut its affidavits denying corporate control over Hyperion and o ffered only speculativ e and conclusory assertions about Disney's contacts with the forum state. SeeDever , 380 F.3d at 1074.

C.

We next address Steinbuc h's allegation that he was harmed by HBO's acquisition of an option to produce a fictional television series based on The Washingtonienne . The district court granted the motion by HBO and Time Warner for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12( b)(6) because it concluded that Steinbuch had failed properly to plead causes of acti on in his complaint for invasion of privacy and outrage.

Applying de novo review to the district court's ruling, we assume as true all allegations in the complaint which must c ontain sufficient facts, as opposed to mere conclusions, in support of the legal require ments of the claim to avoid dismissal. DuBois v. Ford Motor Credit Co. , 276 F.3d 1019, 1022 (8th Cir. 2002). An invasion of privacy claim in Arkansas incorporates the theories of (1) misappropriating the plaintiff's name or likeness for the defe ndant's commercial benefit; (2) intrusion upon seclusion; (3) public disclosure of private facts; and (4) false li ght in the public eye. Milam v. Bank of Cabot , 327 Ark. 256, 937 S.W. 653, 657 (1997). To establish a claim of outrage, a plaintiff must demonstrat e that (1) the defendant intended to inflict emotional distress or knew or should have known that the emotional distress would be the likely result of the conduct; (2 ) the conduct was extreme and outrageous beyond all possible bounds of decency and into lerable in a civilized community; (3) the actions of the defendant we re the cause of plaintiff's di stress; and (4) the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was so severe that no reas onable person could be5 We therefore need not discuss any poten tial First Amendment issues in respect to an injunction pertaining to these parties. See Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart , 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976) (prior restraints on sp eech and publication are the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights).

-14- expected to endure it. Calvary Christian School, Inc. v. Huffstuttler , 367 Ark. 117, 238 S.W.3d 58, 68 (2006).

HBO concedes that it has acquired an option to develop a television series based on Cutler's novel but asse rts that it has not published anything whatsoever about Steinbuch and thus has not invaded hi s privacy or caused outrage. SeeCalvary Christian , 238 S.W.3d at 68 (dismissing claim of outrage since the conduct has not yet occurred); Restatement 2d Torts § 652A-E (invasion of privacy implies publicity of private facts of another). Steinbuch's comp laint is devoid of any factual support for his allegation that he has been injure d by the yet undeveloped television series.

Steinbuch merely speculates that HBO mi ght injure his privacy rights at some time in the future, and its parent corporation Time Warner is not even mentioned in the body of the complaint. See Levy v. Ohl , 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007) (complaint must allege sufficient facts to avoid dismissal). In light of the complaint's failure to allege a colorable claim agains t HBO and Time Warner, there would be no basis for injunctive relief against the merepossibility of a future television series based on Cutler's novel 5 or against Time Warner for its alleged role as the distributor of The Washingtonienne, an allegation which is nowhere to be found in the complaint. We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to allow discovery against Time Warner and HBO because Steinbuch's complaint lacked sufficient allegations to state a claim.-15- III.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing Disney World Publishing, Time Warner, and Home Box Office. We reverse the final judgment entered in favor of Hyperion B ooks, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion and for di scovery on the issue of whether general personal jurisdiction exists over Hyperion.

_________________________