Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
fat from a fee application.’ ” Id. (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933; N.Y. Ass’n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1146 (2d Cir.1983)); see also Lunday v. City of Albany, 42 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir.1994) (“We do not require that .the court set forth item-by-item findings concerning what may be countless objections to individual billing items.”). Barbu, 2015 WL 778325, at *5. In addition to eliminating unnecessary hours, courts may -reduce the number of hours when presented with time entries that are lack sufficient specificity to permit reasoned review. Id.; see also Annuity, Pension, Welfare & Training Funds of Int’l Union of Operating Engineers Local 14-14B, AFL-CIO v. Integrated Structures Corp., 2013 WL 4095651, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2013) . ■ Counsel claims that it expended a total of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that federal courts must apply state substantive law in diversity cases
B. holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague
C. holding that courts must apply acrosstheboard reductions for vague entries
D. holding that vague conclusory statements are insufficient
E. holding vague allegations of bias insufficient
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.