Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
need for the expert’s testimony that it cannot obtain without “undue hardship, which is necessary to overcome a motion to quash by an unretained expert.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3)(B)(ii) advisory committee’s note (An expert can “withhold their expertise” unless the subpoenaing party can “show[ ] a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated”); see also Chavez ex rel. v. Board of Educ. of Tularosa Mun. School, No. CIV-05-380JB/RLP, 2007 WL 1306734, at *6 (D.N.M. Feb. 16, 2007). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there are no other comparable witnesses that are unwilling to testify on its behalf regarding the subject patents-in-suit. Id. . Accordingly, I find it unnecessary to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive
B. holding defendants could not be guilty as parties when the state failed to show they knew the criminality of the conduct they assisted
C. holding that the expert failed to explain how the defendants device operated in an equivalent manner to one of the patent claims
D. recognizing that it is the proponents burden to demonstrate the admissibility of expert scientific testimony
E. holding the subpoenaing parties failed to demonstrate they could not obtain substantial equivalent testimony to that of the unretained expert
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.