Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
solely on theories of misappropriation or misuse of CDC's confidential information. In support of its breach of fiduciary duty claim, CDC avers that it provided Carsey "with access to [CDC's] confidential business information and Trade Secrets," and that Carsey owed CDC several fiduciary duties, including "a duty not to disclose CDC's Trade Secrets and confidential business information, a duty not to use CDC's Trade Secrets and confidential business information to compete un fairly with CDC, and a duty not to use CDC's Trade Secrets and confidential business information for the benefit of a new business." Accordingly, this claim is preempted by the UTSA in its entirety. See, eg., Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Equip. & Mfg., Inc., 649 F.Supp.2d 702, 724 (N.D.Ohio 2009) ; Frantz v. Johnson, 116 Nev. 455, 999 P.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty will not lie where the claim of breach is dependent upon the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties
B. holding that utsa preempted a breach of fiduciary duty claim because it was solely dependent upon misappropriationoftradesecret facts
C. holding that utsa preempted a breach of fiduciary duty claim because it was completely dependent on the facts concerning misappropriation of trade secrets
D. holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba
E. holding that utsa preempted a breach of fiduciary duty claim because the factual allegations supporting that claim involved only the misappropriation of  information
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.