Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Wife disclosed some of Husband’s emails to Cooke and BJR, who allegedly used the emails to obtain additional information about Husband’s affair, the SCA does not punish such conduct. See Cardinal Health, 582 F.Supp.2d at 976 (“While [the] SCA punishes the act of accessing a ‘facility through which an electronic communication service is provided’ in an unauthorized manner, the SCA does not punish disclosing and using the information obtained therefrom.”). Accordingly, the circuit court did not err by granting summary judgment to Wife, Cooke, and BJR. See Fischer, 207 F.Supp.2d at 926 (granting summary judgment to defendants who did not access plaintiffs email accounts); Cardinal Health, 582 F.Supp.2d at 977-79 (same); see also Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc., 457 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir.2006) ; Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir.2003)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding agreed abatement to allow compliance with 60day notice requirement of section 74051a did not extend 120day deadline or constitute an agreement of the parties to extend
B. holding that civil liability under section 2707 does not extend to those who aid abet or conspire with a person or entity engaging in a violation of section 2702
C. holding that section 409 requires a causal connection for liability under section 405a3
D. holding that bivens liability does not extend to a corporate entity because the deterrence rationale applies only to individual actors
E. holding that prior to 1986 amendment when congress replaced with intentionally the word willfully in section 2511 to establish a civil violation of section 2511 a plaintiff had to prove that any violation was intentional or undertaken with reckless disregard
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.