Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
defendant in a case where the relevant statute awards attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party un- less the defendant is a prevailing party within the meaning of that statute. Id. at 1031 (citing Payne v. Milwaukee Cnty., 288 F.3d 1021, 1026 (7th Cir.2002) (“Briefly put, ‘costs’ cannot encompass more than the rules or other relevant statutes authorize.”)). Although we have not yet confronted this question in a Copyright Act case, Trident and Champion make clear that in this context as well, because the district court determined that attorney’s fees were not “properly awardable” to Veoh under § 505, they were not award-able under Rule 68 either. B. Even though Veoh is not entitled to attorney’s fees under Rule 68, it may be entitled to its other costs. See, e.g., Champion, 342 F.3d at 1028 . The district court, however, did not analyze
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that even though attorneys fees were not properly awardable under rule 68 costs excluding fees were mandatory
B. holding that lexis fees are not taxable as costs but reserving ruling on whether such fees are recoverable as attorneys fees
C. holding that appellate attorneys fees were incurred during the divorce proceedings and were awardable by the trial judge
D. holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees
E. recognizing that an award of temporary attorneys fees and costs is based on an assessment of need and ability to pay as well as the reasonableness of the fees and costs
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.