Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
defense counsel to make a reasonable showing of materiality before the court will order discovery. When requesting an officer's personnel file, defense counsel must show that it is reasonably likely that the file will contain relevant information. We review an order denying a motion to compel discovery for abuse of the discretion granted by this rule. In this case, the ree-ord supports Judge Miller's conclusion that Booth's request was based only on conjecture. Booth did not make any showing that the police used excessive force against him in this case. And Booth did not make a showing of any likelihood that 0) (denying disclosure of psychiatric evaluation of prosecution witness in the absence of a showing of relevance); Sawyer v. State, 244 P.3d 1130, 1133-34 (Alaska App. 2011) ; Carman v. State, 658 P.2d 131, 140 (Alaska
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that other incidents involving children handling firearms were not sufficiently similar to require discovery
B. holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law
C. holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances
D. holding that evidence of similar incidents is probative as to notice element in premises liability case
E. holding 911 dispatchers promise to send someone out was not affirmative act as there was no indication that the dispatcher handling of a victims call exceeded or was markedly different than her handling of other similar calls and situations
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.