Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
at least one district court to conclude that the Eleventh Circuit no longer strictly requires proof of bad faith as an essential element of spoliation. See Brown v. Chertoff, 563 F.Supp.2d 1372, 1381 (S.D.Ga.2008). Other district courts have rejected this interpretation of Flury. See Managed Care Solutions, Inc. v. Essent Healthcare, Inc., 736 F.Supp.2d 1317, 1328 n. 16 (S.D.Fla.2010); Woodard v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP, 801 F.Supp.2d 1363, 1372 (M.D.Ga.2011). While the degree of bad faith necessary to impose sanctions may not be entirely clear, it is clear that simple negligence is not enough but actual malice is not required. See, e.g., Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1310 (11th Cir.2009) (noting that malice is not required for finding of bad faith); Bashir, 119 F.3d at 931 ; Preferred Care Partners Holding Corp. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that something more than a mere error of law is required to constitute misconduct
B. holding that probable cause is something more than mere suspicion
C. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required
D. recognizing that if there is evidence upon which one may reasonably infer an element of the crime the evidence is sufficient to sustain that element and where reasonable minds could differ the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction
E. holding that more than mere negligence in losing or destroying evidence is required to sustain an inference of consciousness of a weak case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.