With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by the MDL Panel before a status conference occurred. When the case was remanded, it was not accompanied by any documents, other than a copy of the MDL docket sheets, and the individual filings identified on those docket sheets were not immediately accessible to this court. All of the motions discussed in this opinion were filed before this court gained access to the case file, and could review copies of pleadings filed in the MDL court. Thus, the issuance of a scheduling order before obtaining the relevant portions of the record in the MDL court would have been unreasonable. In the interim, this court issued appropriate orders establishing response deadlines to assure a “just” and “speedy” resolution of the case. See Wieters v. Roper Hospital, Inc., 58 Fed.Appx. 40, 43 (4th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). In short, there is no basis to conclude that

A: holding that although the defendant filed a number of motions because the original trial date never changed as a result of those motions no delay could be attributed to the motions
B: holding that motions to dismiss should have been converted into motions for summary judgment where the district court relied upon contract documents submitted by the defendant
C: holding that the scheduling order merely prescribes the date by which all motions to amend shall be filed the date on the scheduling order does not confine the district courts consideration of the merits of such motions and does not preclude it from finding that an amendment would result in prejudice
D: holding that the absence of a formal scheduling order does not disrupt the development of a case where the court promptly manages and schedules hearings on motions where appropriate
D.