Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of a separate, published opinion filed contemporaneously with this disposition. 2 . Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we do not restate them here except as necessary to explain our disposition. 3 . Cervantes is the only one of the petitioners who might benefit from the motion to reopen on the hardship determination, given that the applications of Alma, as discussed herein, and Serrano, as discussed in the separate, published opinion, fail on independent bases. 4 . The BIA properly determined that equitable tolling excused petitioners’ untimely filing of their motion to reopen, in light of their prior counsel’s statements that petitioners’ only option was to appeal to our circuit. See SocopGonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1184-1185 (9th Cir.2001)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding trial court abused its discretion when case had been on file for only three months the discovery sought was material to the plaintiffs claims and the plaintiff exercised due diligence in obtaining discovery
B. holding that the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff was privy to facts which would provoke inquiry in the mind of a person of reasonable prudence and which if followed up would have led to the discovery of the fraud
C. holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law
D. holding that one need only show that reasonable diligence would not have led to the discovery of essential information bearing on the claim
E. holding that general allegations of a need for additional discovery will not suffice the person presenting such a claim must show what discovery has been obtained why it is inadequate and the what additional information he expects to obtain from additional discovery
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.