With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Carlson claims to have viewed a Hale Propeller MRI displayed by Coastal Prop Technologies at the New Orleans International Boat Show on Dec. 7, 2000. He further claims that the device he viewed contained a spring-loaded ball bearing assembly at the tip of the probe shaft. Hale objects to the late submission of the affidavit, produced months after the close of discovery. There is some support for the proposition that the Court need not consider such late-filed evidence, especially where “the record does not reflect that the evidentiary material was unavailable or unknown to [the party opposing the motion] at the time of its filing the original opposition to summary judgment.” See Mulberry Phosphates, Inc. v. City of Toledo, 1997 WL 539860, at *3, 125 F.3d 856 (6th Cir. Aug. 29, 1997) (<HOLDING>). Here, Ryan Marine has offered no explanation

A: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to introduce direct evidence of the controlling nature of defendants relationship with the victim
B: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action
C: holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider affidavits filed with a surreply when counsel offered absolutely no explanation for its failure to introduce the evidence earlier
D: holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits
C.