Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the proceedings: "We do not mean that the non-moving party must produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial in order to avoid summary judgment." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.E.d.2d 265 (1986). Seizing in part on this declaration, a number of federal courts have found that evidence that would be inadmissible a , 520 U.S. 781, 117 S.Ct. 1734, 188 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997); Treff v. Galetka, 74 F.3d 191, 195 (10th Cir.1996) ("The nonmoving party is not required to produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial, but the content or substance of the evidence must be admissible.") (quotation omitted) (italies in original); Petruszi's IGA Supermarkets, Inc. v. Darling-Delaware Co., Inc., 998 F.2d 1224, 1284-85 n. 9 (3d Cir.19983) . We find particularly instructive the case of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that ijnadmissible evidence may be material if the evidence would have led to admissible evidence
B. holding on the authority of celotex v catrett 477 us 317 106 sct 2548 91 led2d 265 1986 that hearsay evidence produced in an affidavit opposing summary judgment may be considered if the outofcourt declarant could later present that evidence through direct testimony ie in a form that would be admissible at trial 
C. holding that hearsay evidence may be considered on summary judgment if the same evidence would be admissible in another form at trial
D. holding that hearsay in affidavit which would be inadmissible in evidence at trial could not be considered on motion for summary judgment
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.