With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in this case did not prepare the document and there is no testimony in the record from anyone with personal knowledge from either Equifax or LexisNexis. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requires the plaintiff to present evidence of evidentiary quality[.]” Perry v. Jaguar of Troy, 353 F.3d 510, 516 (6th Cir.2003). “The proffered evidence need not be in admissible form, but its content must be admissible.” Id. Therefore, “[a] party may object that the cited material to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2). Here, CFS’s argument is mis-fo-eused. The question is not whether the lease and reports have already been authenticated. Rather, the issue is whether they can be presented in a form that is Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). As for the reports, they may be authenticated

A: holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gangrelated evidence
B: holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting highly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes
C: holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony
D: holding that court did not abuse its discretion in admitting contents of lending institutions loan files as certified domestic record under fedrevid 90211
D.