Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
B.R. 1005, 1007 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1987). Rule 45(b) also may apply in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of execution of judgment. See Bankr.R. 7069(a) (providing that in supplementary proceedings, judgment creditor may obtain discovery by either Federal Rules or state practice). Finally, even where a subpoena is served to compel attendance at a rule 2004 examination, the reasonableness consideration of rule 45(b) applies. See id. 2004 (providing that non-debtor entity's attendance for examination and production of documents may be compelled by manner provided by rule 9016); id. 9016 (incorporating rule 45(b)’s provision of quashing or modifying unreasonable and oppressive subpoena duces tecum), see also In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc., 123 B.R. 702, 712 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1991) ; In re Fearn, 96 B.R. 135, 137, 138
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that court may seal documents if publics right of access is outweighed by competing interests
B. holding that rule 2004 requires court to balance competing interests weighing necessity of information sought
C. recognizing such balance of interests
D. holding that court should balance competing interests
E. recognizing that competing interests of parents children and the state requires additional analysis
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.