With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". formal commitment by defendants to limit jail population. (Supp. Report at 19-25.) Defendants object, arguing that Jail No. 1 remains under capacity, that the Sheriff has orally directed that population at the jail not exceed 557, that booking information provides an unreliable basis for projecting future jail populations, and that the Justice Department recently granted the City $1.2 million in additional funds for diversionary programs. (See Defs.’ Supp. Mem. in Support of Mot. Under Rule 53(e) at 6-12.) The Court does not find the Special Master's findings to be clearly erroneous. To avoid the issuance of injunctive relief in this case, defendants bear the burden of establishing that the wrongs of the past will not recur. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 846 n. 9, 114 S.Ct. at 1984 n. 9 (<HOLDING>) (Emphasis added.) They have not done so here.

A: holding that prison officials could prevent the issuance of an injunction by proving  that they were no longer unreasonably disregarding an objectively intolerable risk of harm and that they would not revert to their obduracy upon cessation of litigation 
B: holding employees claims accrued on the dates they submitted their resignations because by those dates they were aware that conditions had become intolerable and that they felt compelled to resign
C: holding that even though irreparable harm is not required it had been shown and weighed in favor of issuance of the preliminary injunction
D: holding that a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to a protected species is sufficient for issuance of an injunction under section 9 of the esa
A.