With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the Federal Rules.”). So in examining whether the district court abused its discretion in granting Kramer’s motion in limine, we review the court’s balancing of the equities to each of the parties—whether a sufficient “justifying reason” was stated for the bar of Plaintiff-Appellant’s Fourth Amendment claim, despite our liberal pleading and amendment practices. When a district court makes discretionary decisions of this nature, we do not always require the court to explicitly balance the equities as to each of the parties. For example, we have before noted that where allowing a significant late amendment causes “apparent” delay and prejudice, a district court does not err in not stating that reasoning outright. See Sanders v. Venture Stores, Inc., 56 F.3d 771, 773-74 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). But here, the district court resolved a close

A: holding that a justifying reason must be apparent for denial of a motion to amend
B: holding that though the court did not expressly state its reason for denying leave to amend it was apparent what delay and prejudice would be caused by plaintiffs motion which sought to add four new individual defendants as well as additional counts under two federal statutes and a statelaw claim
C: holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add count when no prejudice resulted from two and onehalf year delay and facts underlying new and old counts were similar
D: holding that district court erred in denying leave to amend complaint to add new legal theories even though trial was approaching
B.