Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Family Health did so, and it repeatedly certified to the government, as it was contractually obligated to do, that it had not. As discussed above, Relators have described specific incidences of the well pled “cherry picking” scheme. Therefore, their inability to provide the certifications’ dates, identification numbers, or verbatim content does not preclude them from adequately pleading a false claim. See Lusby, 570 F.3d at 854. As the Seventh Circuit has recognized, a relator is unlikely to have access to the particular certifications, and therefore precluding a plaintiff from asserting a False Claims Act cause of action because the relator does not have access to the particular paperwork would excise “a big bite out of qui tarn litigation.” Id. But cf. Fowler, 496 F.3d at 742 . IY. Relators Fail to Allege that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the group pleading doctrine survives the pslra as to rule 9bs particularity requirements but does not apply to the pslras scienter requirements
B. holding plaintiffs fraud claim failed rule 9b particularity requirement which in turn meant deceptive trade practices claim failed the particularity requirement
C. holding that plaintiffs must provide more than conclusory allegations to satisfy rule 9bs requirement that circumstances of fraud be pleaded with particularity
D. holding that the plaintiffs failed to meet rule 9bs particularity requirement where they did not present any evidence at an individualized transactional level
E. holding that plaintiffs did not satisfy particularity requirement where plaintiffs assertions were based in part on the statements of unnamed former employees
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.