With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". an issue in the case — shown by the interrogatory responses, depositions and disclosures — we find that Com-cast can show no irreparable prejudice from the fact that the Class did not explicitly emphasize DBS foreclosure of regional sports programming in the earlier motions practice. The cases that Comcast cites to support its argument, several of which are nonprecedential, all provide that district courts have broad discretion to disallow the addition of new liability claims after discovery has closed. See e.g., Josey v. John R. Hollingsworth Corp., 996 F.2d 632, 641-42 (3d Cir.1993) (upholding district court’s rejection of a new disparate impact civil rights claim that had been raised after the close of discovery); Carr v. Gillis Assoc. Indus., Inc., 227 Fed.Appx. 172 (3d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>) (not precedential); Spence v. City of

A: holding that an expert could testify that unguarded elevator buttons constituted a design defect despite the experts lack of a specific background in design and manufacture of elevators
B: holding that the labeling act did not preempt design defect claim against cigarette manufacturer
C: holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit a design defect products liability expert to submit an untimely addendum stating a new claim of failure to warn after defense expert refuted the basis of original design defect opinion
D: holding that plaintiffs did not need to identify the specific defective lawn mower to sustain their claim of a design defect
C.