Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
finds that good cause sufficient to require admission exists. The burden of establishing good cause is upon the party offering the evidence and good cause must be shown in the record. Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.5. This rale is mandatory, and the only remedy — exclusion of the witness — is automatic unless the offering party presents good cause on the record to excuse its imposition. See Alvarado, 830 S.W.2d at 914. The purpose of this rale is to require complete discovery so the responsible assessment of settlement is promoted and trial by ambush is prevented. See id. The case law is fairly liberal in providing good cause when the location information provided was sufficient to allow the requesting party to find the witness. See Smith v. Southwest Feed Yards, 835 S.W.2d 89, 91 (Tex.1992) ; Varner v. Howe, 860 S.W.2d 458, 464
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a motion is untimely if not filed after the party has knowledge to support disqualification and after the party suffers an adverse ruling
B. holding failure to designate party as witness not fatal because interrogatory answers showed party had knowledge of relevant facts
C. holding that implied consent is not established merely one party introduced evidence relevant to an unpleaded issue and the opposing party failed to object
D. holding that a plaintiff does not have to possess actual knowledge of all the relevant facts in order for the cause of action to accrue
E. holding that a nonhearsay response to an interrogatory that is based on personal knowledge may be considered as evidence on summary judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.