Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the presumption of immunity creates an “unusual” standard for summary judgment. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit observed, [T]he rebuttable presumption ... creates an unusual summary judgment standard that can best be expressed as follows: “Might a reasonable jury, viewing the facts in the best light for [the plaintiff], conclude that he has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendants’ actions are outside the scope of § 11112(a)?” If not, the court should grant the defendant’s motion. In a sense, the presumption language in HCQIA means that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the peer review process was not reasonable. (Citations omitted.) Bryan, 33 F.3d at 1333; see also Gordon v. Lewistown Hosp., 423 F.3d 184, 202 (3d Cir.2005) . We explained this standard in Goodwich: [T]he
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss
B. holding that plaintiff incorrectly concludes that an abuse of discretion is the standard of review for summary judgment
C. holding that hcqias presumption of immunity creates an unusual standard for reviewing summary judgment orders as the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the professional review process was not reasonable and thus did not meet the standard for immunity
D. holding that the standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence is the same as the standard for denying a motion for a directed verdict
E. holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.