What is the test for denying a continuance for discovery in a motion to quash?

This is comparable to Beckman v. Thompson (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 481, which held the denial of a continuance for discovery was not error because the plaintiff "did not suggest that discovery was likely to produce evidence of additional California contacts by [the defendant] relating to this transaction. He only suggested a desire to find out if [the defendant] was engaged in `substantial lending activities in California.'" (Id. at pp. 486-487.)

Similarly, in Thomson v. Anderson (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 258, which held denial of discovery was not an abuse of discretion, the first mention of discovery was at the hearing on the motion to quash where counsel stated she would like to "be allowed to do a little bit of discovery because just recently I've come across some things . . . which indicate . . ." there is evidence of jurisdiction. (Id. at p. 271.) There was no explanation of the type of desired discovery or the anticipated outcome.