Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on the merits.” Ibid, Settled law holds that these relaxed evidentiary standards permit a district court to consider hearsay at the preliminary injunction stage. See SEC v. Cherif, 933 F.2d 403, 412 n. 8 (7th Cir.1991) (“[Hjearsay can be considered in entering a, preliminary injunction.”); Mullins v. City of New York, 626 F.3d 47, 52 (2nd Cir.2010) (“hearsay evidence may be considered by a district court in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction”); Levi Strauss & Co, v. Sunrise Int’l Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 985 (11th Cir.1995) (“At the preliminary injunction stage, a district court may rely on affidavits and hearsay materials which would not be admissible evidence for a permanent injunction.”); Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. FDIC, 992 F.2d 545, 551 (5th Cir.1993) . As the First Circuit explained: “Affidavits
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a court may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence including hearsay evidence at the preliminary injunction stage
B. holding that evidence in an inadmissible form may be considered at the summary judgment stage as long as the evidence is submitted in an admissible form at trial
C. holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction
D. holding otherwise inadmissible evidence supporting employers good faith in a wrongful discharge claim was not hearsay
E. holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.