Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
it cannot provide a basis for express preemption under” section 360k(a). Docket Entry No. 20 at 16-17. Numerous federal courts have rejected this argument on the basis that “requirements set forth in the premarket approval for the entire device are just as applicable to the components that together form the FDA-approved device as the device itself.” Hawkins v. Medtronic, Inc., 2014 WL 346622, at *5 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 30, 2014); see, e.g., Eidson v. Medtronic, Inc., 981 F.Supp.2d 868, 882 n. 3, 2013 WL 5533081, at *8 n. 3 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 3, 2013) (citing cases and noting that “the preemption analysis should not be applied differently to the component parts of a medical device and the medical device that received PMA”); see also Bass v. Stryker Corp., 669 F.3d 501, 508 (5th Cir.2012) . This Court concurs with that analysis. Once
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district court did not err in determining that device as a whole was subject to pma approval even though some evidence indicated only certain components of the device were at issue
B. holding that trial court did not err
C. holding that factors as a whole were not duplicative
D. holding that the district court did not err by refusing to allow the defendant to absent himself from the trial at which his identification would be an integral issue
E. holding that the district court did not err in determining that inadvertent disclosure did not result in waiver
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.