Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the pretrial deadlines, treated the deadlines as statutes of limitations, “chiseled in concrete,” and therefore sanctionable if violated. Scheduling orders are clearly valuable tools for promoting the efficient management of a trial court’s docket. However, as the Maryland Court of Special Appeals recognized in Maddox: [T]he imposition of a sanction that precludes a material witness from testifying, and, consequently, effectively dismisses a potentially meritorious claim without a trial, should be reserved for egregious violations of the court’s scheduling order, and should be supported by evidence of willful or contemptuous or otherwise opprobrious behavior on the part of the party or counsel. 921 A.2d at 922. See also Revco, D.S., Inc. v. Cooper, 873 S.W.2d 391, 397 (Tex.App.1994) . Based on our review of the record and the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendants discovery requests were untimely because they were not served in time for the responses to be due before the discovery deadline
B. holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law
C. recognizing trial courts decision on discovery issues implies a finding that requested discovery was not reasonably available
D. holding that discovery sanctions so severe they prevent a trial on the merits are warranted only where the record reflects a partys flagrant bad faith or counsels callous disregard for the discovery rales
E. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to extend discovery where no effort was made to explain why the requested discovery could not have taken place within the original discovery period
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.