Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in order to obtain or thwart collateral litigation matters, like those contained in motions for discovery sanctions, motions for protective orders, or motions for sanctions under Rule 1-341.” Id. As did the Folder court, we too have reviewed the text of Rule 2—313 (f) and the pertinent meeting minutes of the Rules Committee. We conclude, as did that court, that a decision dispositive of a claim or defense is one intrinsic to the underlying action. Further, the decision must “actually and formally dispose of the claim or defense,” Shelton v. Kirson, 119 Md.App. 325, 330, 705 A.2d 25, 27 (1998). An order denying a motion to quash a subpoena issued by the Commission is not such a decision. See Unnamed Attorney v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 303 Md. 473, 480-81, 494 A.2d 940, 943-44 (1985) . Rather, the court’s denial of the motion to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in a noncore proceeding a bankruptcy court may enter final orders with the consent of all the parties to the proceeding
B. holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding
C. holding the state may appeal orders of dismissal that have the same effect as orders quashing an information
D. recognizing that notwithstanding the finality of such orders for appeal purposes the underlying investigative proceeding persists
E. holding that finality must be determined in light of the unique nature of bankruptcy procedure and not with blind adherence to the rules of finality
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.