Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
research is assessable as a reasonable cost of litigation. See Wehr v. Burroughs Corp., 619 F.2d 276, 285 (3d Cir.1980). The court in Wehr relied on a theory that a court has discretion to award costs which are not specifically allowed by statute pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wehr can no longer be considered good law on this point, however, in light of the Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncements in Crawford Fitting and West Virginia Hospitals. The Supreme Court rejected the reasoning in Wehr and held that a court may only asses those costs which are specifically outlined in § 1920. Crawford Fitting, 482 U.S. at 441; West Virginia Hosps., 499 U.S. at 93; see also Neyer, Tiseo & Hindo, Ltd. v. Russell, No 92-2983, 1994 WL 158917 (E.D.Pa. Apr.29, 1994) . Applying the same reasoning to plaintiffs
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing implicit overruling of wehr
B. recognizing the overruling of milford township
C. recognizing the effective overruling of bankes
D. recognizing implicit waiver of the attorney client privilege where the plaintiff has placed in issue a communication which goes to the heart of the claim in controversy
E. recognizing prandinis overruling
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.