Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
from cross-industry salary surveys, the court found that this expert opinion failed to "address the main question confronting the Court — whether members of the Proposed Class are sufficiently cohesive with respect to the employment opportunities available to them.” Id. at *10. 10 . To be sure, the court in Fleischman adhered to its decision to deny class certification as to the issues of antitrust impact and damages, even after the plaintiffs in that case retained Dr. Ashenfelter as an additional expert whose benchmark analysis offered a means by which the plaintiffs could potentially establish antitrust impact and damages through common proof. This ruling, however, was based in part on procedural considerations that are not pertinent here. See Fleischman, 2010 WL 681992 at *3 . To the extent that the court further
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiffs were not permitted to present a new benchmark analysis from dr ashenfelter that rested upon previously discoverable data
B. holding that plaintiffs state claims were not preempted because defendant failed to show that these claims rested on standards other than those permitted by the fda
C. holding that the drafting history of operative language from a general liability policy is discoverable when ambiguity in policy has not been resolved
D. holding that material submitted by appellant that is cumulative of evidence previously of record is not new
E. holding that new evidence is evidence not previously of record and not merely cumulative of other evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.