Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
issue presented in this case: that the allowance of a rule 30A (k) deposition does not necessarily require the quashing of a subpoena to the deposed witness as being unreasonable or oppressive. We think the drafters of the rule would not have imposed such a drastic limitation on the important right of parties to call witnesses of their own choosing without explicit language or comment. Certainly in adopting the rule this court did not so intend. Additionally, it should be kept in mind that the judge’s order restricted the defendants’ right of cross-examination, a right which has long been recognized in both civil and criminal cases. See Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 691-692 (1931); The Ottawa, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 268, 271 (1865). See also Fuller v. Rice, 4 Gray 343, 344 (1855) ; McCormick, Evidence § 19 (3d ed. 1984).
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing a right to contribution
B. recognizing the right to counsel on appeal
C. holding no right to crossexamine in grand jury proceedings
D. holding right to be fundamental
E. recognizing right to crossexamine a deponent fully otherwise deposition should not be admitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.