Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Fed.R.Evid. 501 applies. This rule provides, in essence, that when the claims before the court are based in state law, the state privileges apply; but when the claims are based in federal law, the common law privileges apply. In spite of the distinction made by the Fed.R.Evid. 501, it has been held that when the information made privileged by state law “is relevant for both the federal and the state claims, the movant must rely upon a privilege developed by the federal courts and not state law privileges.” Sirmans v. City of South Miami, 86 F.R.D. 492, 495 (S.D.Fl.1980); see also, Vanderbilt v. Town of Chilmark, 174 F.R.D. 225, 226 (D.Ma.1997); Hancock v. Hobbs, 967 F.2d 462, 467 (11th Cir.1992); Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp., 671 F.2d 100, 104 (3d Cir.1982). Such is the case here. Notwithstanding the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when there are federal law claims in a case also presenting state law claims the federal rule favoring admissibility  is the controlling rule the court found this approach consistent with the rule in federal practice disfavoring privileges not constitutionally based
B. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
C. holding that the federal rule favoring admissibility of relevant evidence applies to state law claims in federal cases to which state law privileges might oth erwise apply
D. holding that exclusionary rule to be applied as a matter of state law is no broader than the federal rule
E. holding that a federal court may resort to state law analogies for the development of a federal common law of privileges in instances where the federal rule is unsettled
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.