Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
location upon its return. See Davidson, supra; State v. Prine (Mar. 6, 1991), Summit App. No. 14780, unreported, 1991 WL 35156 (noting that “in resolving any perceived inconsistency between this holding and that of any prior case, the reader is advised that the holding of this case has been approved by a majority of the members of the court”); State v. Brenner (July 30, 1990), Butler App. No. CA8909-127, unreported, 1990 WL 107319; State v. Smoot (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 702, 600 N.E.2d 772; State v. Burton (Nov. 29, 1991), Lake App. No. 90-L-15-138, unreported, 1991 WL 252865 (stating that it was inclined to follow the interpretation in Prine, supra, but was not required to reach that issue). But, see, State v. Young (Apr. 11, 1991), Delaware App. No. 90-CA-40, unreported, 1991 WL 57176 . Holzapfel does not allege that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under new york law a dismissal for failure to comply with discovery obligations is not a judgment on the merits and does not bar a subsequent suit involving the same parties and issues
B. holding that an administrative agency is not subject to a contempt proceeding for failure to comply with an order
C. holding failure to comply with  851b was harmless error in part because defendant did not comply with  851c procedures for challenging prior convictions
D. holding that a failure to conduct a new rfi survey after removing the instrument for repairs does not comply with ohio admcode 37015302c
E. holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.