Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
harm is unavailing—because the harm respondents seek to avoid is not certainly impending” and holding that “respondents cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending”); see also Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., 664 F.3d 38, 46 (3d Cir.2011) (“[The plaintiffs’] alleged time and money expenditures to monitor their financial information do not establish standing, because costs incurred to watch for a speculative chain of future events based on hypothetical future criminal acts are no more ‘actual’ injuries than the alleged ‘increased risk of injury* which forms the basis for [the plaintiffs’] claims.”); Crisafulli v. Amertias Life Ins. Co., No. 13-CV-5937, 2015 WL 1969176 (D.N.J. Apr. 29, 2015) ; In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Data Breach
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because the court could not consider police reports it could not rely on an attorneys argument based on the police report as the basis for determining the statutory basis for a conviction
B. holding that the plaintiff may not rely on expenses for identity theft protection as a basis for standing
C. holding attorney fees may be allowed for expenses incurred for default
D. holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid
E. holding that a plaintiff may rely on the same evidence to prove both pretext and discrimination
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.