Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
it is merely abuse of that discretion and inconsistent with the spir uestion: whether the Plaintiff-Appellant could argue the (undisputedly) correct legal standard to the jury, when it appeared that the shift would be a matter of law and jury instruction rather than a re-opening of discovery, and when the relevant facts underpinning the correct legal standard were already in the record. It was therefore essential in this case that the court give a specific account of its decisionmaking, and to clearly set forth its account of what harm would result from the shift in the legal standard. This it failed to do. A district court that gives “insufficient reasons” for its equitable decision abuses its discretion. See Dubicz v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 377 F.3d 787, 792-93 (7th Cir.2004) . Equities that may be considered include
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add claim when party opposing motion made no showing of prejudice from delay
B. holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint
C. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice
D. holding that a district court abuses its discretion in denying a motion to amend when the opposing partys case for prejudice is stated  only in the most conclusory of terms and no particular witnesses or documents are identified to support the argument that a delay would prejudice a party
E. holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend after a delay of eight months
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.