With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ruling that TDPRS could call her as a witness. Even assuming TDPRS had violated the Rule, the trial court still had discretion to allow her testimony after considering all the circumstances. See Drilex Sys., Inc., 1 S.W.3d at 117 (stating that if the Rule is violated, the trial court may, taking into consideration all of the circumstances, allow the testimony of the potential witness). Also, Kristin fails to demonstrate how admission of Wheeler’s testimony probably resulted in an improper judgment. In fact, the record reflects sufficient evidence beyond Wheeler’s testimony on which the jury could have concluded that termination of Kristin’s parental rights was in the best interest of K.M.B. See Garza v. Cole, 753 S.W.2d 245, 247 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ ref d n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that the trial court

A: holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by letting a video technician who violated the rule testify when the record reflected sufficient evidence on which the jury could have found for appellees
B: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay evidence and evidence that violated the best evidence rule in deciding a summary judgment motion
C: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify
D: holding that trial court did not err in ruling on appellees motion for summary judgment before appellees complied with appellants discovery request when the record reflected that appellant filed a motion to compel three days before the hearing and the record did not reveal any effort on the part of appellant to secure a ruling from the trial court on its motion to compel or object at the trial court hearing the motion for summary judgment prior to ruling on the motion to compel
A.