Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
these “findings” do not constitute true "findings of fact” because they were not separately filed as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 299a. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 299a (requiring findings of fact to be separately filed and not simply recited in judgment); Casino Magic Corp. v. King, 43 S.W.3d 14, 19 n. 6 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied). Accordingly, we employ the standard of review applicable to cases where no findings have been requested or filed. Casino Magic Corp., 43 S.W.3d at 19 n. 6. In the absence of findings, we imply all necessary fact findings in support of the trial court’s order. In re Williams, 328 S.W.3d 103, 112 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2010, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]); see also In re Weekley Homes, LP., 295 S.W.3d 309, 316 (Tex.2009) (orig. proceeding) ; In re La. Tex. Healthcare Mgmt., L.L.C., 349
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that while as a general matter discovery should be freely permitted  j jurisdictional discovery is justified only if the plaintiff reasonably demonstrates that it can supplement its jurisdictional allegations through discovery
B. holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion
C. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to extend discovery where no effort was made to explain why the requested discovery could not have taken place within the original discovery period
D. recognizing trial courts decision on discovery issues implies a finding that requested discovery was not reasonably available
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.