Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
hearing. II. In reaching this holding, the Court is aware that several other courts, including district courts in this Circuit, have interpreted § 7 as giving arbitrators powers beyond the reading provided by this Court. But the courts that have given the statute a broader reading are not binding on this Court. See, e.g., Fox v. Acadia St. Bank, 937 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir.1991) (“A district court is not bound by another district court’s decision, or even an opinion by another judge of the same district court.”). The Court is unpersuaded by the reasoning expanding an arbitrator’s power to permit pre-hearing discovery from non-parties. Simply put, they do not base their analysis on the text of § 7, but rather on its supposed implications. See, e.g., In re Security, 228 F.3d at 870-71 . It becomes necessary to rely on such
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the recognition power is not limited to a determination of the government to be recognized but rather includes the power to take actions without which the power of recognition might be thwarted
B. holding that implicit in the arbitrators power to subpoena relevant documents at hearing is the power to order prehearing discovery
C. recognizing the subpoena power of the judiciary
D. holding that the issuing court necessarily has the power to enforce a protective order it issued at any point it is in effect even after entry of a final judgment and courts enjoy the inherent power to modify any discovery related orders postjudgment
E. holding that the subpoena power of a court cannot be more extensive than its jurisdiction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.