Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
as to preclude presentation of the merits of the case should not be assessed absent a party’s flagrant bad faith or counsel’s callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules.” Id. (emphasis added). Furthermore, in Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 515, 87 S.Ct. 625, 628, 17 L.Ed.2d 574 (1967), the United States Supreme Court determined that a penalty may be anything that makes the assertion of a constitutional right costly. If used properly, the privilege against self-incrimination is not a proper basis for a death-penalty sanction. The Texas Supreme Court has had occasion to revisit TransAmerican, and continues to insist that death-penalty sanctions are inappropriate absent a finding of bad faith. See Otis Elevator Co. v. Parmelee, 850 S.W.2d 179, 181 (Tex.1993) ; Remington Arms Co., Inc. v. Caldwell, 850
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that without a demonstration of bad faith on the part of the attorney in question sanctions pursuant to this statute are inappropriate
B. holding deathpenalty sanctions inappropriate where party inadvertently failed to comply with courts order and nothing in the record  even approaches the flagrant bad faith or abuse necessary for the imposition of such sanctions
C. holding that where party had reasonable grounds to believe conduct was in compliance with the district courts order imposition of sanctions was not warranted and constituted an abuse of discretion
D. holding deathpenalty sanctions inappropriate where plaintiff refused to name coworkers who used drugs and was late in answering interrogatories because of attorneys illness because there was no indication of bad faith
E. holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.