Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
See Chamberlain, 589 F.2d at 840-42. It insisted on an appropriate explanation for why the exempt documents could not reasonably be segregated from non-exempt material. See Pac. Fisheries, 539 F.3d at 1148. FOIA is not designed “as a substitute for civil discovery.” Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345, 360 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1103, 71 L.Ed.2d 199 (1982). The fact that the Cheungs wish to use the documents they seek in their civil tax proceeding does not make Exemptions 3 and 7(A) inapplicable. Indeed, it is precisely because of the uses to which the Cheungs might put the documents that the exemptions are applicable. The district court properly denied Shannahan’s discovery requests for information concerning the nature and origins of documents he requested. See Lane, 523 F.3d at 1134 . The Cheungs’ problem is partly of their own
```
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 unauthorized disclosure of documents does not constitute a waiver of the applicable foia exemption
C. holding that in foia cases discovery is limited because the underlying case revolves around the propriety of revealing certain documents
D. holding that the agency did not have an obligation to search for and produce the documents the plaintiff claimed entitlement to because the plaintiffs foia request gave no indication that she sought those particular documents
E. holding that foia exemptions are not mandatory bars to disclosure because the purpose of foia is to provide broad disclosure of government documents
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.