With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". A (2) (c) (718 SE2d 135) (2011) (physical precedent only) (explaining that expert witness “was allowed to opine that the security measures at the complex were inadequate and deficient”); Birge v. Dollar Gen. Corp., No. 04-2531 BP, 2006 WL 5179319, at *3 (II) (W.D. Tenn. 2006) (excluding proffered expert testimony when witness did not “have any expertise or training that qualifie[d] him to provide expert testimony concerning the deterrent effect of security measures on criminal defendants”); B discretion by excluding the testimony of a witness who was listed as a “may call” witness in pretrial order because appellees “could no longer claim they were surprised by appellants’ decision to call” the witness); see also Foster v. Morrison, 177 Ga. App. 250, 250-51 (2) (339 SE2d 307) (1985) (<HOLDING>); Kamensky v. Stacey, 134 Ga. App. 530, 532 (1)

A: holding that trial court impliedly ruled on motion for continuance by granting motion for summary judgment when appellant filed motion for continuance two days before summary judgment hearing
B: holding that trial court properly denied motions for continuance and mistrial when counsel was notified of new witnesses within five days of trial as specified by pretrial order
C: holding that the defendants motion for discharge was premature and thus properly denied by the trial court
D: holding trial court has jurisdiction to reconsider new trial order as long as case is pending
B.