Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a witness to answer questions must be obeyed, and a failure to obey such order subjects the witness to a contempt citation, even if the order was erroneous or improvident.” Minnesota State Bar Ass’n v. Divorce Assistance Ass’n, Inc., 311 Minn. 276, 283, 248 N.W.2d 733, 740 (1976) (emphasis added). The doctrine of absolute privilege may apply if a person voluntarily makes a statement that later is the basis of a civil action, Mahoney & Hagberg, 729 N.W.2d at 306, albeit within “narrow limits,” Matthis v. Kennedy, 243 Minn. 219,' 223, 67 N.W.2d 413, 417 (1954). And there are even stronger reasons to apply the doctrine of absolute privilege if a person involuntarily makes a statement that later is the basis of a civil action. See Johnson v. Dirkswager, 315 N.W.2d 215, 223 (Minn. 1982) . Thus, Mattson is entitled to the protections
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that state official was entitled to absolute privilege because he was required by law ie data privacy act to disclose reason for termination of plaintiffs employment
B. holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity
C. holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable
D. holding that a judge was not entitled to absolute immunity for firing an employee
E. holding that city council is entitled to absolute legislative immunity from claim under the age discrimination in employment act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.