With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". might lead to complaints filed solely to extract nuisance settle ments.” See Kramer, 937 F.2d at 774. Although plaintiffs do not cite to defendants’ SEC forms in framing their insider trading allegations, the allegations can be derived only from those publicly-filed documents. Plaintiffs cannot preclude consideration of defendants’ SEC forms by artful pleading. Plaintiffs’ attempt to exclude the SEC forms as hearsay is disingenuous for the same reason. Having raised questions about defendants’ stock sales, based their allegations on defendants’ SEC filings, and submitted expert declarations that rely on the SEC forms at issue, plaintiffs can hardly complain when defendants refer to the same information in their defense. See United States v. Anderson, 532 F.2d 1218, 1229 (9th Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, the Court denies

A: holding that defendant who introduced hearsay statement waived objection to admission of another part of same statement
B: holding that the defendants objection did not suggest that the objected to statement was hearsay and therefore concluding that the defendant waived appellate review of the hearsay argument
C: holding that in employees age discrimination suit against former employer supervisors statement to employee was not hearsay even though the statement was offered for its truth because the statement was an admission by a party opponent
D: holding that if defendant objects to admission of evidence but same evidence is subsequently introduced from another source without objection defendant waives earlier objection
A.