With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that has not been allowed the benefits of discovery. It is simply too early at this stage for the Court to conclude that “no reasonable jury could find that the persons to whom ... [P]laintiff[s] compare[ ] [themselves] are similarly situated.” Clubside, Inc., 468 F.3d at 159. Therefore, the Court denies the Lewis County Defendants’ Motion for summary judgment on this claim. In denying summary judgment on this claim, the Court also concludes that at this point it may not conclude that Defendants Moser and Petzoldt are entitled to absolute immunity. Prosecutors are protected by an absolute immunity when performing certain of their responsibilities, but only qualified immunity when performing other tasks. See, e.g., Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Thus, “acts undertaken by a prosecutor in

A: holding that a prosecutors preparation and filing of an information and a motion for an arrest warrant are protected by absolute immunity
B: holding that while a witness and prosecutor were protected by absolute immunity for their participation in judicial proceedings they were not entitled to absolute immunity on a  1983 claim that they conspired to present false testimony
C: holding that a prosecutor was protected by absolute immunity for preparing and arguing a warrant application but not for providing legal advice to investigating police officers
D: holding that the prosecutors activities in preparing and filing an information and motion for an arrest warrant were protected by absolute immunity
C.