Given the task definition and input, reply with output. In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

690 F.Supp. 317 (D.C.N.J.1988) (direct mail solicitation in New Jersey confers personal jurisdiction). In light of CCC's uncontested affidavit, therefore, the court was justified in denying further discovery. CBS argues that it could not have made more specific allegations without jurisdictional discovery and that it never had the opportunity to take such discovery. Further, CBS points to cases in this circuit suggesting that a district court abuses its discretion w . 308, 312 (S.D.Ind.1997) (citing cases and holding "it is reasonable for a court ... to expect the plaintiff to show a colorable basis for jurisdiction before subjecting the defendant to intrusive and burdensome discovery"); International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., v. Skibs A/S Hidlefjord, 63 F.R.D. 85 (S.D.N.Y.1973) (<HOLDING>). To be sure, CBS had no obligation to make
Holding statements: (A) holding that section 144 requires both a factual affidavit and a separate certificate that the affidavit was made in good faith (B) holding jurisdictional discovery not appropriate when plaintiff merely hopes to find statements in defendants affidavit not accurate but has not made counterallegations in its own affidavit (C) holding that because plaintiff has met defendants affidavit evidence with mere speculation plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery must be denied (D) holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit (E) holding affidavit insufficient to support probable cause when one cannot learn from the affidavit when the past activities occurred and when the observations were made
holding that section 144 requires both a factual affidavit and a separate certificate that the affidavit was made in good faith