Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
showing “that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case.” Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Once the 'moving party has met its burden, the non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Rather, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify specific facts that show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348. Only genuine disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the lawsuit will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Arpin v. Santa Clam Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2001) . A genuine issue of material fact must be more
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that summary judgment is unwarranted if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party
B. holding that an issue is genuine if the evidence is sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party
C. holding that the nonmoving party must present specific evidence from which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in its favor
D. recognizing that a motion for directed verdict should be granted when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a jury could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party
E. holding that dispute regarding material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.