With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Tire Co. v. Martinez, 977 S.W.2d 328, 340-41 (Tex.1998); General Motors Corp. v. Saenz, 873 S.W.2d 353, 356 (Tex.1993); Gen. Chem. Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916, 921-22 (Tex.1993); Boatland of Houston, Inc. v. Bailey, 609 S.W.2d 743, 746 (Tex.1980)). Significantly, the Nissan court expressly recognized the admissibility of incidents to show that a safer design w .D. 611, 614-16 (D.Kan.2005) (granting plaintiffs motion to compel the production of information concerning the defendant manufacturer’s European version of a child car seat in a lawsuit involving a child car seat manufactured by the same parent corporation in the United States where the discovery was relevant to the feasibility of a safer alternative design); Herman v. Andrews, 50 S.W.3d 836, 844 (Mo.App. E.D.2001) (<HOLDING>); Preston v. Montana Eighteenth Judicial Dist.

A: holding a substantially similar probation condition overbroad
B: holding  241 not vague or overbroad
C: holding that plaintiffs request for substantially similar product types was not overbroad unduly burdensome or oppressive
D: holding deadline 120 days before election was not unreasonable or unduly burdensome
C.