Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
same FERC decision. On November 26, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Response. On January 22, 2015, the court held a final oral argument in San Francisco, California (“1/22/15 TR 1-92”). III. DISCUSSION. A. Whether Plaintiffs Have Standing. As a matter of law, a “plaintiff must be in privity with the United States to have standing to sue the sovereign on a contract claim.” S. Cal. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. United States, 422 F.3d 1319, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Privity “takes on even greater significance in cases such as this, because the ‘government consents to be sued only by those with whom it has privity of contract.’ ” Id. (quoting Erickson Air Crane Co. of Wash. v. United States, 731 F.2d 810, 813 (Fed. Cir. 1984)); see also Anderson v. Unit ed States, 344 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ; see also id. (“To have standing to sue the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because private plaintiffs were signatories of a breached contract they were entitled to recoveiy independent from that of the corporation but denying expectancy damages claim and not addressing claim for reliance damages
B. holding that absent privity between plaintiffs and the government there is no ease
C. holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable
D. holding that privity is lacking where plaintiffs were not signatories to the contractual documents
E. holding that contractual privity between the buyer and seller was not necessary for a cfa claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.