Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
As stated above, the Ninth Circuit generally takes a broader view, and often finds that expert testimony is appropriate regarding the objective substantial similarity of literary works. See Olson, 855 F.2d at 1449; Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc., 562 F.2d 1157, 1164 (9th Cir.1977). Nonetheless, several Ninth Circuit cases have recognized the limitations of expert testimony in this area. See Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1179 (9th Cir.2003) (upholding the district court’s decision to disregard the parties’ expert reports where the court engaged in an extensive analysis of the alleged similarities in expressive elements of the works and "neither expert opinion [was] very relevant to the conclusions drawn by the court”); Olson, 855 F.2d at 1450-51 ; Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the district courts decision to discount expert testimony was appropriate where the expert deemphasized dissimilarities between the works and compared scenes a faire
B. recognizing that the need for the expert was so great that the decision to preclude the expert effectively amounted to dismissal of case
C. holding the district courts decision not to allow an expert to rely on a note found in a hospital record was within the courts discretion because the court found that the note was too unreliable to be used as the basis for an expert opinion
D. holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive
E. holding expert testimony on probative similarities between works is unnecessary where the works are not highly technical and the jury is capable of recognizing and understanding the similarities between the works without the help of an expert
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.