Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
this regard, in Benavidez v. City of Albuquerque, 101 F.3d 620-627 (10th Cir.1996), we spoke as follows: When the pre-termination process offers little or no opportunity for the employee to present his side of the case, the procedures in the post-termination hearing become much more important. Such a post-termination hearing represents the only meaningful opportunity the employee has to challenge the employer’s action, and requiring a dismissed employee to prove in this context that he was terminated without just cause may increase the risk of an erroneous deprivation. It is often difficult to prove a negative, and where the pre-termination process has been minimal, the employee’s fate may depend entirely upon the post-termination hearing. Cf. Lavine, 424 U.S. at 585, 96 S.Ct. at 1016 ; Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525, 78
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the protection of the work product doctrine
B. recognizing that wjhere the burden of proof lies on a given issue is of course rarely without consequence and frequently may be dispositive
C. holding that section 523a2c shifts the burden of production and not the burden of proof on the issue of intent only
D. recognizing burden
E. holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.