Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
testify one way or another. Id. Thus, there was no indication that the impeachment evidence would be relevant, or even admissible. Id. In this case, disqualification would rest at present upon the chance that the prosecution might call the personnel manager to testify regarding Padilla's personnel file. We have no evidence in this record to support a determination that the possibility of that cireum-stance w 82 (1994) (stating that a defendant has no standing to invoke a third party's privilege in either a criminal or civil action}; State v. Evans, 802 S.W.2d 507, 511 (Mo.1991) (stating that "the physician-patient privilege is personal to the patient, and generally no person ... other than the patient may so object"); Osborn v. Fabatz, 105 Mich.App. 450, 306 N.W.2d 319, 322 (1981) . Hence, it falls not to the defendant in this
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where a third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract the forum selection clause applies to the third party
B. holding that the defendant had no standing to invoke a third partys physicianpatient privilege in a paternity action
C. holding that a plaintiff had no injury in fact and consequently no standing when it had no enforceable contract right against the defendant
D. holding that the court must consider the extent of control exercised by the defendant over the third partys means of infringement
E. holding defendant assumed risk that third party would consent to search of storage locker where defendant instructed third party to rent locker under third partys name and allowed third party to keep possession of lease papers and to occasionally retain the keys
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.