instruction:
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.
question:
States Dist. Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972). The Supreme Court has recognized that “searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). However, the Supreme Court has permitted exceptions to the warrant requirement when “special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment) (allowing school officials to conduct warrantless searches of student property without probable cause); see also O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873-74, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding searches conducted without a warrant based on probable cause are presumptively unreasonable (B) holding neither the warrant requirement nor the probable cause requirement should apply to noninvestigatory workrelated purposes or for investigations of workrelated misconduct  (C) holding a person may consent to warrantless searches as a condition of a suspended sentence (D) holding  1983 action lies for warrantless arrest without probable cause (E) holding that government employers may conduct warrantless workrelated searches of employees offices without probable cause
answer:
holding searches conducted without a warrant based on probable cause are presumptively unreasonable


question:
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
answer:
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


question:
Hook’s unsafe workplace claim was “totally independent from the existence and administration of’ the ERISA plan. 38 F.3d at 784. The claim for negligent misrepresentation was not preempted “because it neither sought benefits under the plan nor alleged improper processing of benefits.” Id. A few months after the decision in Hook, the court again held that an employee’s common law occupational injury claim did not relate to an employer’s ERISA plan. Tex. Health Enters., Inc. v. Reece, 44 F.3d 243, 245 (5th Cir.1994). In Smith v. Texas Children’s Hospital, the court held that preemption did not apply to a plaintiffs fraudulent inducement claim because the claim was not necessarily dependent upon the plaintiffs rights under the ERISA plan. 84 F.3d 152, 155 (5th Cir.1996). The h Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Nunez v. Wyatt Cafeterias, Inc., 771 F.Supp. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed (B) holding that a legal malpractice insurance policy that limited coverage to suits seeking damages and defined damages as excluding sanctions did not provide coverage for a sanctions motion against the insured (C) holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage (D) holding claim that insurance agent fraudulently induced insured to surrender coverage under existing policy to participate in erisa plan which did not provide promised coverage related to that plan only indirectly (E) holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant
answer:

holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed