With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". genuine issue of material fact is in dispute, see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585 n. 10, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986), and the court must “view the underlying facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Pennsylvania Coal Ass’n v. Babbitt, 63 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir.1995); see also Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348. Once the moving party has carried its initial burden, the nonmoving party “must come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ ” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)) (emphasis omitted); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (<HOLDING>). The mere existence of some evidence in

A: holding that the nonmoving party may not rest upon mere denials or allegations in the pleadings but must set forth specific facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial
B: holding that the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings to show that there is a genuine issue for trial
C: holding that an adverse party must state specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of fact for trial
D: holding that an issue is genuine if the evidence is sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party
B.