With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (“Allegations of date, time or place satisfy the Rule 9(b) requirement that the circumstances of the alleged fraud must be pleaded with particularity, but alternative means are also available to satisfy the rule.”). Under this Court’s nuanced, case-by-case approach, other means are available to present the required indicia of reliability that a false’ claim was actually submitted. Although there are no bright-line rules, our case law has indicated that a relator with direct, first-hand knowledge of the defendants’ submission of false claims gained through her employment with the defendants may have a sufficient basis for asserting that the defendants actually submitted false claims. See U.S. ex rel. Walker v. R & F Properties of Lake County, Inc., 433 F.3d 1349, 1360 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). By contrast, a plaintiff-relator without

A: holding that relators failure to meet the particularity requirements of rule 9b did not bar his claim where the relator was a former employee of the defendants and lacked access to records and documents in the possession of the defendants that contained information necessary to plead with particularity
B: holding relator satisfied rule 9b by alleging the basic framework procedures the nature of fraudulent scheme and the financial arrangements and inducements among the parties and physicians that give rise to relators belief that fraud has occurred
C: holding that rule 9b was satisfied where the relator was a nurse practitioner in the defendants employ whose conversations about the defendants billing practices  with the defendants office manager formed the basis for the relators belief that claims were actually submitted to the government
D: holding where the plaintiff presented evidence which demonstrates that the terms alleged by the defendants to be indefinite were in fact sufficiently well delineated to all parties the entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendants was inappropriate despite the fact that the defendants contested the plaintiffs evidence concerning the manner in which the relevant contractual language should be construed
C.