Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
quotation marks omitted). IV. Conclusion For the reasons discussed herein, the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is AFFIRMED. 1 . The other defendants named in Karl’s complaint have either been dismissed from the case or have not appealed. Likewise, no other claims alleged in Karl’s complaint are before the court. 2 . We have previously declined to decide whether a public employee’s testimony is per se a matter of public concern regardless of its content or the type of proceeding in which it is offered. See Clairmont, 632 F.3d at 1103; Alpha Energy Savers, Inc. v. Hansen, 381 F.3d 917, 926 n. 6 (9th Cir.2004). We again decline to decide this question because in this case, as in our previous ones, the content th Cir.1998) (per curiam) . Far from creating a circuit split regarding
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an insureds personal belief that he was not liable for an accident provided no basis for submitting the question of the reasonableness of his delay in notification to a jury when the insured knew the day after the accident that it had been claimed that the cable he had installed had caused the accident
B. holding that accident report was necessary to presentation of case and exclusion was in error
C. holding that a police officers deposition testimony in another individuals wrongful death suit was not protected speech where the testimony merely parroted the contents of an accident report generated in the normal course of his duties as an accident investigator
D. holding that a wrongful death claim related back to a personal injury claim in an automobile accident case where the wrongful death claim  arose from the same transaction or occurrence as the original complaint and the defendant was advised of the essential facts necessary to prepare his defense even with the added claim
E. holding that a police officers deposition in a fellow officers  1983 action alleging unlawful retaliation was protected speech
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.