Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Sporck, since that decision “has been widely adopted.” Id. at 4. Sporck was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in a securities fraud class action. See Sporck, 759 F.2d at 313. The relevant facts follow. In preparation for a deposition, defendant’s counsel reviewed with the client “an unknown quantity of the numerous documents produced by defendants in response to plaintiffs discovery requests.” Id. During the deposition, defendant’s counsel declined to produce all documents reviewed by the defendant, because “the selected documents represented, as a group, counsel’s legal opinion as to the evidence relevant both to the allegations in the case and possible legal defenses.” Id. (emphasis added); see also id. at 314 . The trial court initially granted plaintiffs
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that former federal rule of civil procedure 6a and e applies to federal habeas petitions
B. recognizing that while summary judgment is improper if the nonmovant is not afforded a sufficient opportunity for discovery it is the nonmovants responsibility to inform the district court of the need for discovery by filing an affidavit pursuant to rule 56f of the federal rules of civil procedure or filing a motion requesting additional discovery
C. holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted
D. holding that the select grouping of the documents was attorney workproduct protected from discovery by federal rule of civil procedure 26b3
E. holding that there is no right of public access to documents considered in civil discovery motions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.