Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of Houlton, 175 F.3d 178, 184 (1st Cir. 1999). Neither the Rhode Island legislature nor the Rhode Island Supreme Court has yet established or recognized the existence of an independent tort for the spoliation of evidence. While both the magistrate judge and the district court judge concluded that the Rhode Island Supreme Court would not create such a tort, we see no need to delve into the unchartered waters of Rhode Island law and endeavor to prophesize whether the Rhode Island Supreme Court would adopt an independent tort for spoliation of evidence. Compare, e.g., Fletcher v. Dorchester Mut. Ins. Co., 437 Mass. 544, 773 N.E.2d 420, 426 (2002) (declining to recognize an independent tort for spoliation of evidence) with Torres v. El Paso Elec. Co., 127 N.M. 729, 987 P.2d 386, 404 (1999) . We agree with the magistrate judge and the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing a tort for the intentional spoliation of evidence
B. holding no intentional spoliation occurred where defendant was not on notice that evidence was relevant to claim
C. holding absent some independent tort contract agreement voluntary assumption of duty or special relationship of the parties the new tort of the intentional interference with a prospective civil action by spoliation of evidence should not be recognized in kansas
D. recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress
E. holding that tort remedy for intentional spoliation was not novel but included under elements of tort of fraudulent concealment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.