Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
nascent cause of action. True enough. But federal FOIA jurisprudence leaves no doubt that a lawyer’s request for information must plainly spell out the representative capacity and the identity of the client before that client can bring a FOIA action in her own name. When an attorney files a FOIA request on behalf of a client, the attorney is the one to whom courts have granted standing to sue. See Constangy, Brooks & Smith, by Bridgesmith ex rel. Teledyne Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 851 F.2d 839, 840 n. 1 (6th Cir.1988) (noting that the plaintiff, a law firm, had standing to request the FOIA documents on behalf of its client); see also Burka v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 142 F.3d 1286, 1291 (D.C.Cir.1998); Unigard Ins. Co. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 997 F.Supp. 1339, 1341 (S.D.Cal.1997)  In Three Forks Ranch Corp. v. Bureau of Land
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when attorney representing unigard submitted a foia request in his own name unigard lacked standing because its name did not appear on the request itself
B. holding that the united states court of appeals for veterans claims abused its discretion denying a request for supplemental attorney fees when plaintiff successfully defended part of his eaja fee request
C. holding that an officers request for a citizens identification by itself did not amount to a seizure
D. holding that the ij did not abuse his discretion in denying request for further continuance where the ij granted previous request
E. holding that the filed rate doctrine barred request for damages but did not preclude request for injunction and civil penalties
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.