Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Eastern District of Texas, the plaintiffs choice of venue. Nintendo informed the district court that the majority of NOA’s relevant documents are located within the transferee venue. The record also shows that all of Nintendo’s research and development documents are located in Kyoto, Japan. Notwithstanding this evidence, the district court assumed that Nintendo’s relevant documents were equally spread between its headquarters in Japan and Washington, and minor satellite offices in California and New York. By including these minor offices in the equation, the trial court hypothesized that the Eastern District of Texas could serve as a centralized location. This court has already questioned this type of reasoning in another case involving the Eastern District of Texas. See id. at 1344 . Because most evidence resides in Washington
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that venue in the district identified in  9 was mandatory
B. holding that the district court is free to consider the full record in the case when selecting the appropriate sanction
C. holding that the district court in setting fees appropriately relied upon prevailing market rates in the eastern district of new york where the case was commenced and litigated
D. holding that it is improper to consider the centralized location of the eastern district of texas when no identified witness resides in the district
E. holding that the district court erred when it failed to consider the presumption of irreparable harm
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.