Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
specific content of Karl’s testimony independently exposed potential government wrongdoing or even “whether it had an impact on the result” of Wender’s litigation. Robinson, 566 F.3d at 823. Finally, we see no material distinction between subpoenaed deposition testimony and testimony in open court, where both are offered in the context of a judicial or administrative proceeding alleging government misconduct. Caw argues that testimony given during a deposition, which is often conducted in the private confines of a law firm, differs from testimony elicited in court, which is open to the public. We have recognized that the public has a lesser First Amendment interest in accessing pretrial discovery materials. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir.2006) ; see also Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a district court could properly designate the magistrate to make a nonbinding recommendation on nondispositive motions under section 636b3 but such matters are reviewed de novo
B. holding parties to a lower standard when they seek to file under seal documents attached to nondispositive rather than dispositive motions
C. holding that it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint
D. holding that hearing requirement for summary judgment motions is satisfied by courts review of documents submitted by parties
E. holding in part that the presumption of public access attaches to pretrialnondiscovery motions whether preliminary or dispositive and the materials briefs and documents filed with the court in support of or in opposition to such motions but not to pretrial discovery motions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.