Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that although the rule “does not require the producing party to engage in a post-production review to determine whether any protected communication or information has been produced by mistake,” the “rule does require the producing party to follow up on any obvious indications that a protected communication or information has been produced inadvertently.” For example, when a privileged document is used at a deposition, and the privilege holder fails to object immediately, courts have found the privilege to be waived. Nguyen v. Excel Corp., 197 F.3d 200, 206 (5th Cir.1999); Brandon v. D.R. Horton, Inc., No. 07-CV-1256, 2008 WL 2096883, at *3 (S.D.Cal. May 16, 2008) (listing cases); cf. Clarke v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 08-CV-02400, 2009 WL 970940, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2009) . Of course, the burden of proving that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that failure to timely assert attorneyclient privilege constitutes waiver
B. holding that a one month delay is acceptable
C. holding that a six month delay was unreasonable
D. holding that voluntary testimony before a grand jury did not waive the privilege at trial because it is settled that a waiver of the fifth amendment privilege is limited to the particular proceeding in which the waiver occurs
E. holding twomonth delay in asserting privilege including failure to assert privilege at a deposition weighed in favor of finding waiver and describing cases in which waiver was found after delay ranging from six days to one month
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.