Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to Kelley, in print and in the telephone conversation, were related to a contemplated judicial proceeding. Bleisch in his deposition and Dolcefino in his affidavit affirmatively and clearly stated that if the controller’s office persisted in denying access to KTRK, legal proceedings to gain access were contemplated. Thus, the statements are absolutely privileged. Where, as here, communications are protected by the absolute privilege, those communications may not serve as the basis of a civil action for libel or slander, regardless of the negligence or malice with which they are made. See Thomas, 940 S.W.2d at 342-43. It follows that when a statement is so protected, publication of the statement does not defeat the privilege. Id. at 344. Acc , Inc., 838 F.2d 1287, 1302 (D.C.Circ.1988) . Moreover, there can be no claim against a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding prepublication discussions between libel counsel and reporters as fitting squarely within the scope of the privilege as defined in upjohn 
B. holding that communications between the university of colorados counsel and former employees of the university concerning activities during their period of employment may be protected by the attorneyclient privilege under the rationale presented in upjohn but holding that the university waived the privilege by disclosing the documents
C. holding that where the basis of state claims for medical malpractice relates to the administration of plan benefits those claims fall squarely within the scope of erisa
D. recognizing the distinction between a landowner and a possessor as defined by  328e of the restatement
E. holding issues within scope of administrative hearing are within the reviewing courts purview
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.