Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
extend the time for filing the Bank’s expert witness designations; • designated its expert witnesses and provided the Bryce Plaintiffs a report from each; • filed an objection to the Bryce Plaintiffs’ request for a protective order to limit the distribution of information available from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC); • filed a motion for in camera inspection of the OCC information to address its claims of privilege; and • filed a motion and a supporting brief requesting reconsideration of the trial court’s order requiring production of the information obtained from the OCC. Based upon the extent of the discovery conducted and this additional activity, the trial court properly concluded that the Bank had substantially invoked the judicial process. See id. at 595-96 . The Bank disagrees pointing out that it was a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that good cause did not exist where movant was on notice of information that with some investigation would have led to timely discovery of the basis for the motion to amend
B. holding that a movant that clearly establishes likelihood of success on the merits receives the benefit of a presumption of irreparable harm
C. holding litigation process substantially invoked where movant conducted extensive discovery about every aspect of the merits
D. holding that government was not substantially justified in its litigation position where government conducted a poor investigation of claim failed to verify claimants story unreasonably delayed pursuing and processing litigation of forfeiture claim for thirteen months and where court ultimately found at trial which occurred four years after initial seizure that seized property had independent source and had not been used illegally
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.