With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". because of the urgent nature of the relief sought by Baker’s Table, the court met with the parties and their counsel on the day that the complaint was filed. On that day, the court denied the request for a preliminary injunction, set out an expedited briefing schedule for the Rule 80B portion of the complaint, and indicated that the remaining independent claims would proceed in due course. Because of the court’s expeditious handling of the matter, and because the court immediately established an expedited briefing and hearing schedule for the Rule 80B portion of the complaint, Baker’s Table believed that it had been relieved of the responsibility to file a request to specify the future course of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 80B(i). The court did not, however, explicitly 9, 942 (<HOLDING>); Fraser Employees Fed. Credit Union v. Labbe,

A: holding that dismissal is not necessarily warranted even when a partys conduct in response to discovery requests is laggard and slothful
B: holding sanctions were appropriate when a partys failure to turn over materials in response to a discovery request prejudiced the opponent
C: holding sanctions were appropriate due to prejudice imposed on other party from failure to disclose subject matter of expert testimony
D: holding sanctions were appropriate when excessive responsive pleadings were filed for purposes of delay
B.