Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1737 Corp. must show that the transfers were consistent with the parties’ prior practices. See Savage & Assocs. v. Mandl (In re Teligent, Inc.), 380 B.R. 324, 340 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2008). Its counsel represented at oral argument that the defendant no longer employs Insignia/ESG as its property manager, and it may be very difficult to muster the documentary and testimonial evidence needed to mount a defense after so many years. City of Yonkers, 2008 WL 5272722, at *6 (“To permit an extension of the service period now, sua sponte, more than four years after the complaint was filed, would require defendants to defend a lawsuit based on actions taken more than seven years ago.”); Rice v. Univ. of N.D. Sch. of Med. & Health Scis., No. 2:07-cv-11, 2008 WL 5145482, at *4 (D.N.D. Dec. 8, 2008) . Savage is responsible for the long delay, and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding recusal not required where case involved a family whom district judge had known personally seven or eight years earlier
B. recognizing the prejudice of an extension to a defendant who would be required to litigate events that occurred more than eight years earlier
C. holding that the indictment was sufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement since it alleged that the defendants conduct occurred over a period of eight years
D. holding that a delay of more than eight years attributable to the normal workings of the appellate process in addressing a pretrial appeal is reasonable
E. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.