Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Inc., 633 F.3d 591, 597-98 (7th Cir.2011) (noting that the “district court’s denial of any discovery was all the more unreasonable because [the producing party] had refused to meet with [opposing counsel] to negotiate a reduction in the amount of discovery sought and ... refuse[d] • to present any evidence of the burdens that granting, [the] discovery request would impose.”). Finally, no undue burden exists because the discovery requests being compelled through this Order are sufficiently tailored. The discovery requested here is narrower than the discovery requested in In re Consorcio Ecuatoriano as Mesa Power is requesting documents that directly relate to the foreign proceeding and that date from within a reasonable time period. Compare In re Consorcio Ecuatoriano, 685 F.3d at 999 , with Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that rejection of the appellants rule 56f request for additional discovery was proper where the information as to which he sought discovery was immaterial to the question of whether he is liable
B. holding that discovery was appropriately tailored as it limited the request to information within a six year time period relating to one specific contract and the deposition of a person most knowledgeable
C. holding that a blanket bond contract provision requiring a party to bring suit within one year after discovery of the loss was not unreasonable
D. holding that abusive acts within one month of receipt of deposition notices may be retaliation for initiation of lawsuit more than one year earlier
E. holding that one year limitations period in insurance policy was reasonable and therefore enforceable to shorten the fifteen year statute of limitations for breach of contract
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.