In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 of this Court [that] has already entertained and rejected posed by NCB’s status within the Kingdom of Saudi the same constitutional challenge to the same Arabia. See Ruhrgas, 526 U.S. at 588, 119 S.Ct. 1563; see [governmental] provision.” Jd. at 195 (limiting holding to also Terrorist Attacks [| 349 F.Supp.2d at 789-792 constitutional challenges to governmental provisions). (analyzing NCB’s status as a foreign sovereign). Additionally, NCB acknowledges that personal NCB’s reliance on Bush cannot prevail here. The jurisdiction discovery will only involve it, its relationship exception relied on in Bush is limited to constitutional to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is sufficiently remote that challenges to governmental provisions. Bush, 304 F.3d at an inquiry into NCB’s contacts with the United States will 195; see also Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 99, 118 S.Ct. 1003. not intrude on the inner workings of the Kingdom’s Here, the merits of NCB’s liability for the attacks of government. Finally, discovery regarding NCB’s FSIA September 11 do not present a constitutional challenge to defense would necessarily subject the Kingdom to a governmental provision such that skipping the discovery, which the Court is hesitant to do unnecessarily. jurisdiction question would be appropriate. See First City, Texas—Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.1998); see also Arriba Ltd. v. In its alternative argument for reconsideration, NCB Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (Sth Cir.1992) requests that the Court postpone resolution of the subject (recommending that “discovery should be ordered matter jurisdiction question posed by the FSIA until circumspectly and only to verify allegations of specific NCB’s personal jurisdiction defense is resolved. NCB facts crucial to an immunity determination”). argues that such a course would lead to its quicker dismissal from the litigation and