Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
40, 46 (1953). One of those factors is the civil nature of the proceedings. Id. Assuming the proceedings are civil in nature, as Shetsky and rule 702(f) indicate, rule 115 of the General Rules of Practice reflects the traditional practice for a civil action by implicitly placing the burden on the moving party to obtain a hearing date. Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 115.02 reads: A hearing date and time shall be obtained from the court administrator or a designated motion calendar deputy. A party obtaining a date and time for a hearing on ot guarantee the right to a hearing on all motions. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 43.05 (stating that the court “may direct that [a motion] be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions”); see also Braith v. Fischer, 632 N.W.2d 716, 723 (Minn.App.2001) , review denied (Minn. Oct. 24, 2001). Here, we
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding no abuse of discretion when district court declined to hear oral testimony
B. holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion
C. holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative
D. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting testimony to only one witness where additional witnesses would have provided the same testimony
E. holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.