Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and it deposition testimony given by Charlie Thomas in two prior lawsuits, Marshak v. Arista Records, Civ. Index No. 96-3032(JBW)(S.D.N.Y.), and Marshak v. Green, Civ. Index No. 79-3458(EW)(S.D.N.Y.). Portions of these depositions were read into the record during Marshak’s cross-examination in this case. See Trans, at 347-51, 388-94. In the Arista deposition, Thomas testified that he had joined The Drifters during the late 1950s at the request of George Treadwell. See id. at 347. Thomas also testified that Treadwell was the manager of the group and that Treadwell made all final decisions relating to performances, costumes, appearance bookings, musical content, travel arrangements, and personnel changes. See id. at 347-51, 389; see also Rick v. Buchansky, 609 F.Supp. 1522 (S.D.N.Y.1985)(<HOLDING>). Thomas further stated that he considered 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that consistent with our rejection of the group pleading doctrine we do not construe allegations contained in the complaint against the defendants as a group as properly imputable to any particular individual defendant unless the connection between the individual defendant and the allegedly fraudulent statement is specifically pleaded (B) holding that a plaintiff in a reverse discrimination case need show only that he is a member of a protected group and whites are a protected group under title vii (C) holding that in the absence of written contracts the manager of a singing group may own the rights to the name if he or she remains continuously involved with the group and is in a position to control the quality of its services (D) holding that once the defendant has submitted to the control of the officer and the process of taking him or her to the police station  has commenced his or her arrest is complete and he or she is in custody for the purposes of the escape statute (E) holding that plaintiffs statistics did not shed any light on the legally relevant issue because they did not indicate the group of applicants who were interviewed or even the group of applicants found qualified or the group of all applicants
Output (English): holding that consistent with our rejection of the group pleading doctrine we do not construe allegations contained in the complaint against the defendants as a group as properly imputable to any particular individual defendant unless the connection between the individual defendant and the allegedly fraudulent statement is specifically pleaded