Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters states herein.” The declarations of Kurokawa and Hart complied with HRCP Rule 56(e). “In instances where Hawaii case law and statutes are silent, this court can look to parallel federal law for guidance.” Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai'i 94, 104, 962 P.2d 353, 363 (1998) (quoting State v. Ontai 84 Hawai'i 56, 61, 929 P.2d 69, 74 (1996)). As the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are substantially similar to the HRCP, we look to federal ease law for guidance. The Ninth Circuit has indicated that the Rule 56(e) requirement of personal knowledge and competence to testify may be inferred from the affidavits themselves. See Barthelemy v. Air Lines Pilots Ass’n, 897 F.2d 999, 1018 (9th Cir.1990) ; Lockwood v. Wolf Corp., 629 F.2d 603, 611
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that evidence of the defendants personal cocaine use was relevant to their knowledge regarding the charge of conspiring to import marijuana because it demonstrated their familiarity with illegal drugs
B. holding that ijnsurance policies are contracts and as such they are to be enforced according to their provisions and ijnsurance companies must be able to rely on their statements of coverage exclusions disclaimers definitions and other provisions in order to receive the benefit of their bargain
C. holding that it was proper for court to rely on affidavits of defendants representatives in negotiations because their personal knowledge and competence to testify are reasonably inferred from their positions and the nature of their participation in the matters to which they swore
D. holding that plaintiffs may plead on information and belief if matters are not within their personal knowledge
E. holding that even though defendants response does not affirmatively state in the document itself that they are competent to testify as to the facts to which they swore does not necessarily doom their testimony  so long as the record taken as a whole demonstrates that their testimony meets the requirements of rule 56
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.