Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
could constitute objective indicia of Israel’s knowledge of the underlying felony that the State was alleging that he committed. At best, the record reveals that Israel suspected that the underlying felony alleged was Terroristic Threatening in the First Degree and made arguments based on that suspicion in his motion to dismiss; such suspicion does not rise to the lev ulars was supplied by the State and there is nothing in the record to suggest that any materials provided in response to Israel’s discovery requests identified the underlying felony alleged as part of the HRS § 134-6(a) charge. Moreover, the State cannot rely on the mere possibility that the underlying felony might have been revealed by a bill of particulars or via discovery. Cf. Robins, 66 Haw. at 316, 660 P.2d at 42 . Therefore, we hold that the State failed to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted
B. recognizing that the scope of issues in interlocutory appeals is limited
C. recognizing that the facts that a bill of particulars is discretionary with the judge pursuant to hrpp rule 7a and that other discovery rules are limited in scope might prevent a defendant from discovering the states position
D. recognizing that while summary judgment is improper if the nonmovant is not afforded a sufficient opportunity for discovery it is the nonmovants responsibility to inform the district court of the need for discovery by filing an affidavit pursuant to rule 56f of the federal rules of civil procedure or filing a motion requesting additional discovery
E. holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.