In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[Q]: notes, records, omitting nothing.” Doc. 8, Attachments 1^4, 7 (emphasis added). Such subpoenas could lead to the production of medical information, social security numbers, payroll information, income tax information, information about family members, and other documents completely extraneous to this litigation, and the Court finds it difficult to conceive of subpoenas which could be more expansively written than these. See Hendricks, 275 F.R.D. at 255-56 (noting, where the subpoenas at issue requested “any and all personnel documents pertaining to the named plaintiff,” that “it [was] difficult to conceive of subpoenas which could be more expansively written than those at issue”); see also Cook, 2012 WL 3634451, at *6 (“While the Appellants assert that these materi 647, at *4 (<HOLDING>); see also Lewin v. Nackard Bottling Co., No. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that subpoenas seeking the complete employment file of plaintiff including employment application payroll records medical records evaluations correspondence and all other records omitting nothing  were overbroad and could be quashed on that basis alone (B) holding that subpoenas seeking any and all documents files and records reflecting or relating to the employment of each plaintiff were overly broad on their face (C) holding that a restriction on any unrelated adult was overly broad and unsupported by the evidence (D) recognizing a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents including judicial records and documents (E) holding that records relating to a student court were not education records
[A]: holding that subpoenas seeking the complete employment file of plaintiff including employment application payroll records medical records evaluations correspondence and all other records omitting nothing  were overbroad and could be quashed on that basis alone


[Q]: the notice. (Hilsee Supp. Aff. ¶ 6(b), June 8, 2005). Moreover, the notice campaign began in early December, and the deadline to file opt-outs was April 8, 2005. This timeline, spanning a period of four months, is consistent with court-approved best practices for class notice campaigns. Id. at ¶ 6(c)vi. Accordingly, I FIND that there was sufficient notice leading up to the opt-out deadline. Objectors also assert that because the settlement class could have potentially included millions of Class Members, and only 6,524 have “shown their hands” to be included in the class by filing an inventory form, the notice is inadequate. However, many factors contribute to the claims response rate. See, e.g., Zimmer Paper Prod., Inc. v. Berger & Montague, P.C., 758 F.2d 86, 92-93 (3d Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>); 3 Alba Conte & Herbert Newberg, Newberg on 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner (B) holding that notice apprised class members sufficiently of information that notice was intended under the rule to convey (C) holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city (D) holding that where defendant engaged in customary and court approved notice procedure the response rate was not determinative of the adequacy of the class notice (E) holding that a notice of deficiency was invalid where it was the second notice mailed for that year and the taxpayer timely petitioned the court as to the first notice
[A]: holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner


[Q]: sentence and that of her co-conspirators was unwarranted, and asserts this point of error for two reasons: “(1) to preserve the issue in the event the Supreme Court decides that under facts similar to those in this case the disparity is not warranted; and (2) ... because of the timing of her arrest and her inclusion in the case as a defendant, she was not presented with any opportunity to provide substantial assistance and therefore was not similarly situated to the co-conspirators who testified against her.” Perez was sentenced to 292 months’ imprisonment, while her co-conspirators (other than Fonceca) were sentenced to significantly lower sentences due to their assistance to the government in prosecuting this case. We rejected an argument similar to Perez’s in Duhon, 440 F.3d at 720 (<HOLDING>). Duhon noted that district courts should 
 Holding statements: (A) holding it was reasonable trial strategy for counsel to have determined that sentencing by the court was preferable to sentencing by a jury (B) holding that sentencing disparity produced by substantial assistance departures was intended by congress and is thus not a proper sentencing consideration under section 3553a6 (C) holding that the district courts failure to give consideration to the sentencing disparity that would result was another reason the defendants sentence was unreasonable (D) holding that sentencing enhancements and sentencing departures are not synonymous and that a waiver for upward departures imposed by the court does not permit the challenging of sentence enhancements (E) holding that sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine is constitutional
[A]:
holding it was reasonable trial strategy for counsel to have determined that sentencing by the court was preferable to sentencing by a jury