With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In an attempt to prove such a fact, Electric Mobility points to the rather feeble deposition testimony of Michael Flowers, the President of Electric Mobility, who testified that he believed that the time period in which Electric Mobility ordered and received Bourns potentiometers from Hall-Mark “was a broader period of time.” See Kenneth M. Denti Out-of-Pocket Expense Aff., Ex. F (Flowers Dep.) at 715. In sum, I conclude that this is not an “appropriate” case in which to exercise my discretion to excuse the consequences of Electric Mobility’s judicial admission. Cf. MacDonald, 110 F.3d at 340 (finding that trial court was within discretion to conclude attorney’s remarks were not “deliberate voluntary waivers” and did not constitute judicial admissions); Belculfine, 527 F.2d at 944 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Brewton, Crim. No.

A: holding that district court did not abuse discretion in not binding government to casual statements made by its attorney
B: holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative
C: holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking fact statements that did not comply with the local rules
D: holding district court did not abuse its discretion in not granting plaintiffs leave to amend complaint for a third time
A.