Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
prepublication investigation to ensure it was adequate and complete. But Compuware squandered this opportunity, providing only a short, virtually fact-free, one-paragraph response to Moody’s inquiry. Compuware now attempts to use against Moody’s this cursory response, arguing that Moody’s should have investigated the issue further. But this sort of argument is not supported by precedent. The relevant legal inquiry focuses on the extent of the defendant’s efforts to avoid the truth, not the extent of the defendant’s investigation to discover the truth. See Perk, 931 F.2d at 411-12. Because Moody’s actively sought to learn about the relationship and litigation between Compuware and IBM, any alleged investigatory deficiencies are insufficient to establish actual malice. See id. at 412 . Furthermore, Moody’s investigatory efforts,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendants were not liable for failing to perform the thorough professional investigation the plaintiff would have preferred
B. holding that there is no constitutional duty to do a better investigation and that a decision not to conduct a more thorough investigation does not invade an accuseds rights
C. holding that individual defendants were not liable under the elcra because they did not have the authority to rehire the plaintiff
D. holding investigation was not deficient in part because counsel hired an experienced death penalty investigator who conducted a thorough investigation into defendants history
E. holding that under oklahoma law a bad faith claim  premised on inadequate investigation must be supported by a showing that material facts were overlooked or that a more thorough investigation would have produced relevant information
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.