Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of regulating the commerce in agricultural commodities itself. But because futures contracts do conLain a provision for delivery as an optional mode of compliance with obligations created by such contracts, rare as the exercise of that option is, it isn’t always easy to determine just from the language of a contract for the sale of a commodity whether it is a futures contract or a forward contract. Nagel, 217 F.3d at 440. 11 . The quoted language appears identically in each of the Producers’ affidavits. 12 . This court is no stranger to either the Eighth Circuit's decision in Camfield nor its application. This court has applied the Cam-field decision in several of its prior published decisions. See generally Waitek v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust, 908 F.Supp. 672 (N.D.Iowa 1995) ; Kunzman v. Enron Corp., 902 F.Supp. 882
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that waterhouse cannot generate a genuine issue of material fact by making statements in an affidavit that directly contradict his sworn deposition testimony given in the case
B. holding that subsequent affidavit contradicting prior sworn testimony does not create genuine issue of fact
C. holding that physicians affidavit created genuine issue of material fact even though it directly contradicted his prior deposition testimony where physician offered a plausible explanation for the change in his testimony
D. holding that the court may disregard an affidavit submitted solely for the purpose of opposing a motion for summary judgment when that affidavit is directly contradicted by deposition testimony and the nonmovant does not explain the discrepancies
E. holding nonmoving partys affidavit created genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an employment relationship
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.