With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". brief statements, appellants somehow draw the inference that the matters discussed involved themselves. Yet the BCCI fiduciaries did not file suit against appellants* until July 1,1994 — over one and a half years after this conference — and the trustee did not commence the Al-Nahyan lawsuit until June 24, 1993. Consequently, there is scant evidence to suggest that the alleged ex parte communications even related to appellants’ currently pending civil lawsuits. There is no evidence to suggest, moreover, that any participants in these communications failed to exercise care in speaking of pending matters; to the contrary, the record shows that the trustee made this concern clear, and the experienced trial judge is entitled to this court’s deference in that regard. Cf. D.D.C. R. 307(a) (<HOLDING>). Finally, appellants contend that, regardless

A: recognizing that a court may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record
B: recognizing the propriety of conferences in chambers and other matters normally handled in camera
C: recognizing the individuals interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters
D: recognizing that fundamental consideration in assessing the propriety of a prosecutors motion to dismiss is whether the motion is made in good faith
B.