Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for a full evidentiary hearing in which extensive findings of fact would be made. Moreover, the court’s judgment on whether the reinitiation procedures in question are contumacious turns on legal analysis not on disputed issues of material facts. This conclusion is based on two realities. First, the facts that underlie the specific practice alleged to be contumacious are not controverted. The plaintiffs agree with the defendant that the union’s policy of charging fees and back dues for reinitiation is race neutral on its face. (Pl.’s Motion at 2). The absence of a dispute over the nature of the policy makes a full evidentiary hearing in which the court would conduct extensive findings of fact unnecessary. See Sassower v. Sheriff of Westchester Cnty., 824 F.2d 184, 190 (2d Cir.1987) ; Agur v. Wilson, 498 F.2d 961, 965 (2d Cir.)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an evidentiary hearing is necessary only if the party requesting the hearing raises a significant disputed factual issue
B. holding that where affidavits raise a genuine issue of material fact as to a brady claim an evidentiary hearing should be conducted
C. holding that there is no need for an evidentiary hearing when the petitioners habeas submissions demonstrate that the petitioner is conclusively entitled to relief in such circumstances an evidentiary hearing would be a waste of judicial resources
D. holding that due process requires an evidentiary hearing when parties submissions in contempt proceedings raise disputed issue of material fact
E. holding that constitutional due process in civil contempt proceedings requires notice and a hearing but not the right to counsel
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.