With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". be recognized in the trial court’s failure to vacate mandatory mediation provisions of the judgment, which are normally inappropriate in a case where spousal abuse is alleged. See Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 114.04 and 310.01 (precluding court-ordered mediation where one party claims to be the victim of domestic abuse). This clause, like others in the judgment, remains final following the trial court’s determination that vacation is inappropriate under prevailing standards. Appellant did not raise this issue to the trial court, and we need not address it on appeal. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988). Moreover, the trial court’s determination that no abuse occurred militates against vacating the mediation provision. Cf. Mecktel v. Mechtel, 528 N.W.2d 916, 919 (Minn. App.1995) (<HOLDING>). DECISION Appellant has shown no clear error

A: holding that issuance of a protective order or other probable cause of abuse precludes court ordered mediation
B: holding that there was probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant where the officers corroboration of events that occurred during the controlled buy as set forth in the affidavit provide sufficient probable cause
C: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified a protective order after settlement to permit public access to pretrial materials in spite of a protective order to the contrary which it viewed as having had been initially justified
D: holding that production of documents without seeking a protective order waives the right to such an order unless there is a showing of good cause for the delay
A.