Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the court’s decision to strike defendants’ pleadings and enter default was just, related to the claims at issue in the violated discovery order, and supported by a careful written analysis of the pertinent factors. Additionally, we conclude that appellants’ continued discovery abuses and failure to comply with the district court’s first sanction order evidences their willful and recalcitrant disregard of the judicial process, which presumably prejudiced Dingwall, Yang, and Chai. See Hamlett v. Reynolds, 114 Nev. 863, 865, 963 P.2d 457, 458 (1998) (upholding the district court’s strike order where the defaulting party’s “constant failure to follow [the court’s] orders was unexplained and unwarranted”); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products, 460 F.3d 1217, 1236 (9th Cir. 2006) . In light of appellants’ repeated and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law
B. holding that absent extraordinary circumstances a failure to comply with the statute requires a dismissal with prejudice
C. holding default was the appropriate remedy for failure to comply with numerous court orders and discovery requests
D. holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits
E. holding that with respect to discovery abuses prejudice from unreasonable delay is presumed  and failure to comply with court orders mandating discovery is sufficient prejudice
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.