Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or during the Daubert hearing, that Mr. Lindsey failed to test his theory. Additionally, Defendant never cross-examined Mr. Lindsey regarding whether he tested his theories. Instead, Defendant argued Mr. Lindsey’s testimony was unreliable because he failed to rule out all other possible ignition sources, because the fire destroyed substantial portions of the coffee maker, and was primarily premised on missing materials. The Court cannot now assess whether Mr. Lindsey did or did not test his theories and what effect, if any, they would have on the admissibility of Mr. Lindsey’s testimony. As the first mention of this argument was in its motion for a new trial, the Court concludes Defendant has waived this argument. See Palmerin v. City of Riverside, 794 F.2d 1409, 1413 (9th Cir.1986)  c. Precluding Evidence Regarding Dr. Zamiski’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a definitive ruling in limine preserves an issue for appellate review without the need for later objection
B. holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal
C. holding litigant preserves an issue on appeal where substance of the objection has been thoroughly explored during the hearing on the motion in limine
D. holding grant or denial of motion in limine is preliminary ruling and normally preserves nothing for appellate review
E. holding that an objection raised in a motion to suppress evidence preserves the issue for appeal despite the lack of further objection at trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.