Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
been shown that the defendant’s insurer was doing anything other than investigating and processing an insurance claim, which is the nature of an insurer’s business. That Aetna learned of attorney Majewski’s involvement as early as October 26, 1987, is not dispositive, for the defendant has failed to prove that it switched to a litigation posture because of such knowledge. The mere awareness by an insurer that an injured person was seeking legal advice would not ordinarily cause one to anticipate litigation. Thus, any statements made by witnesses to the defendant, its agents, or its insurer (per the express language of Rule 26(b)(3)) soon after the incident are not protected by the work product doctrine. Accord, Schmidt v. California State Auto. Ass’n., 127 F.R.D. 182, 184 (D.Nev.1989)  Some eight months later on June 8,1988, Aetna
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that court erred in admitting letter as business record where testimony was not adequate to establish that the letter was compiled as a matter of regular practice as opposed to one prepared in anticipation of litigation
B. holding that letters addressing dispute that was subject of litigation and that were written in anticipation of litigation did not fall under business record exception under rule 8036 of the federal rules of evidence and noting that it is wellestablished that one who prepares a document in anticipation of litigation is not acting in the regular course of business
C. holding that the work product doctrine applied to a document prepared in anticipation of litigation and was therefore protected from disclosure under foia exemption 5
D. holding that the workproduct doctrine was inapplicable where there was no indication a memorandum was prepared in anticipation of litigation
E. holding that not all of claims file was prepared in anticipation of litigation and noting that the majority of cases that have dealt with the issue of whether investigative materials prepared by insurance claims adjusters is workproduct prepared in anticipation of litigation have held that since insurance companies have a routine duty to investigate accidents such materials are not prepared in anticipation of litigation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.