Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Connecticut. Consequently, the court has no information on the precise content of these histories, and must base its decision solely on the records from Connecticut. See footnote 4, supra. 9 . Camara’s birth date and driver's license expiration date are not protected. In the definition of "personal information,” section 2725(3) lists an individual's "photograph, social security number, driver identification number, name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code), telephone number, and medical or disability information....” 18 U.S.C. § 2725(3). Applying the interpretive doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the statute cannot be read to apply to an individual's birth date nor his driver's license expiration date. See Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 370 (2d Cir.2006) . 10 . Courts turn to the traditional canons of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that application of the doctrine of expressio unius is proper where the statute identifies a series of two or more terms or things that should be understood to go hand in hand thus raising the inference that a similar unlisted term was deliberately excluded
B. holding law of case doctrine is procedural and does not go to jurisdiction of court
C. holding that the term occurrence was defined to mean any happening or series of happenings arising out of or due to one event taking place during the term of this contract
D. holding that contract terms were ambiguous where the specific term that appellant argued should control a more general term was itself susceptible of two reasonable interpretations
E. holding that where a statute uses the disjunctive term or the provisions of the statute plainly encompass two distinct situations
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.