Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the defendant of the specifics of the charges he must defend against at trial. In this case, the family court’s discretion should have been exercised in light of the purposes of a bill of particulars, which is designed to enable the defendant to “prepare for trial and to prevent surprise.” State v. Balanza, 93 Hawai'i 279, 286, 1 P.3d 281, 288 (2000) (emphases added) (citing State v. Reed, 77 Hawai'i 72, 78, 881 P.2d 1218, 1224 (1994), overruled on other grounds by Balanza, 93 Hawai'i at 288, 1 P.3d at 290). This court has held that a bill of particulars is not required if the information called for has been provided “in some other satisfactory form.” Reed, 77 Hawai'i at 78, 881 P.2d at 1224 (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Balanza, 93 Hawai'i at 288, 1 P.3d at 290 . However, without being apprised in the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellants motion for change of judge where the appellant failed to demonstrate actual bias
B. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying reeds motion for bill of particulars when reed did not deny that the transcripts of the preliminary hearing and police reports provided him with the information that he claimed was lacking in the complaint
C. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form
D. holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing
E. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to amend complaint because the proposed amendment would have been futile
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.