With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (finding that the passage of more than two months defeats any retaliatory nexus); Ponticelli v. Zurich Am. Ins. Grp., 16 F.Supp.2d 414, 436 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (finding that a “two-and-a-half month” interval “is hardly the close proximity of time ... for allowing a plaintiff to establish the ‘causal connection’ element” (citation omitted)); see also Hollander v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 895 F.2d 80, 85-86 (2d Cir.1990) (three and a half months insufficient); Yarde v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 360 F.Supp.2d 552, 562 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (“Three months is on the outer edge of what courts in this circuit recognize as sufficiently proximate to . Serv., 180 F.3d 426, 446-47 (2d Cir.1999), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the court should consider a time lapse

A: holding that the mere possibility of an upward departure beyond one year qualifies a kansas offense as one punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
B: holding that discovery was appropriately tailored as it limited the request to information within a six year time period relating to one specific contract and the deposition of a person most knowledgeable
C: holding abusive acts within one month of receipt of deposition notices may be retaliation for initiation of lawsuit approximately one year earlier
D: holding that a one month delay is acceptable
C.