With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “manner, conditions and scope” of the examination; and (4) compliance with the request would have inconvenienced plaintiff, who would have had to travel two and one-half hours each way for the examination. After considering defendant Legion’s motion and arguments of counsel, the trial court found “at this late date said independent medical exam is untimely[.]” We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for a medical examination. In their last assignment of error, defendants contend the trial court committed reversible error by allowing plaintiff to elicit testimony on cross-examination from defendant Legion’s representative, Larry Von Eschen (Von Eschen), in violation of defendant Legion’s motion in limine which had been orally g 664 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Since defendants failed to object at trial

A: holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court
B: holding plaintiffs waived their right to appellate review of the admission of an experts testimony by failing to object to it at trial
C: holding that failure to object to trial court about violations of federal and state due process waived appellate review of those claims
D: holding that parent waived appellate review of evidentiary ruling by failing to object until posttrial motion
B.