With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or manner” of production, and the parties are unable to agree, the trial court may, upon motion, enter an order under Rule 1.380(a) specifying the time, place and manner, and may further order who shall pay the cost of transporting the documents to the specified place of inspection. Cf Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b); 4A J. Moore, J. Lucas & D. Epstein, Moore’s Federal Practice § 34.19 (2d ed. 1984). In this case, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling the petitioner’s objection as to the requested place of production. Discovery which is otherwise appropriate should not be refused solely because production of documents would hamper a party’s business operations. Id. at § 34.19[2], See also Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. LeMay, 93 F.R.D. 379 (S.D. Ohio 1981) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, we deny the writ insofar as it

A: holding that an unwieldy recordkeeping system requiring heavy expenditures of time and money to produce relevant documents is not an adequate excuse to refuse discovery
B: holding that  727a6a clearly includes orders requiring the debtor to produce documents relating to his or her financial condition
C: holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion
D: holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether hindsight vindicates an attorneys time expenditures but whether at the time the work was performed a reasonable attorney would have engaged in similar time expenditures
A.