Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
messages for over two years on a cell phone for which she discontinued service. Similarly, bad faith cannot be inferred because the text messages were not printed out when there is no indication that such a printout was even possible. Indeed, courts agree that HRE Rule 1004(1) is “particularly suited” to electronic evidence “[gjiven the myriad ways that electronic records may be deleted, lost as a result of system malfunctions, purged as a result of routine electronic records management software (such as the automatic deletion of e-mail after a set time period) or otherwise unavailable....” Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 580 (D.Md.2007). See also King v. Kirkland’s Stores, Inc., No. 2:04-cv-1055-MEF, 2006 WL 2239203, at *5 (D.Ala. Aug. 4, 2006) (unpublished decision) ; Bidbay.com, Inc. v. Spry, No. B160126, 2003
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under former rcw 6933430 1959 although preferable if defendant is served personally with a copy of the search warrant it was not reversible error when defendant received the warrant the next day
B. holding that officers possession of affidavit at searched premises without leaving a copy with the occupant was insufficient to allow for consideration of the affidavit in evaluating the constitutionality of the warrant
C. holding that plaintiffs testimony regarding the content of an email from defendant was admissible although plaintiff argued only that a copy of the email as opposed to the original or sole copy was in the possession of the defendant
D. holding that failure to deliver a copy of search warrant and itemized copy of the warrant return to defendant in absence of showing of injury reveals no error
E. holding the excluded testimony was relevant to whether a signature was that of a deceased party and since a statement regarding the issue was the only testimony that could be given by the witness no offer to prove was necessary because the substance of the evidence was apparent from the context of the question asked
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.