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.

Example Input: seeking to invoke the exception must establish that they agreed to engage in a joint effort and to keep the shared information confidential from outsiders. See, e.g., United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 243-44 (2d Cir.1989) (finding valid joint defense privilege where information was "imparted in confidence" between parties "who had agreed upon and undertaken a joint strategy"); United States v. Sawyer, 878 F.Supp. 295, 297 (D.Mass.1995) (despite similar interests between employer and employee, insufficient evidence that communications were made during the course of a joint defense effort; proponent could neither establish time frame of agreement nor acts creating and/or terminating the agreement); United States v. United Tech. Corp., 979 F.Supp. 108, 110, 112 (D.Conn.1997) (<HOLDING>); Libbey Glass, Inc. v. Oneida, Ltd., 197
Holding statements: (A) holding common interest doctrine shielded information consortium members shared pursuant to collaboration agreement (B) recognizing doctrine (C) recognizing that tribes and states understood that they shared the right to manage the exercise of in common hunting and fishing rights (D) recognizing a subset of the common interest privilege as parents and schools have a corresponding interest in the free flow of information about administrators and faculty members (E) holding that there was no waiver of the work product protection because the business and public relations firm specializing in litigationrelated crisis management shared a common interest
Example Output: recognizing doctrine

Example Input: of whether the images on the site constituted child pornography, the receipt shows Shiver's familiarity with making commercial transactions for pornographic images on the Internet. The government also presented evidence specifically showing that the image of one child in particular had been produced in North Carolina. That the latter image ended up on Shiver's computer in Florida strongly suggests that it traveled in interstate commerce. We likewise reject Shiver's contention that the government's evidence was insufficient to support the jury's conclusion that he "knowingly possessed" the images of child pornography on his computer. Although we have interpreted the meaning of "knowing possession" in other contexts, see, e.g., United States v. Glover, 431 F.3d 744, 748 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) (quotation omitted), we have not yet had
Holding statements: (A) holding that the phrase possession or custody in 5225b requires actual and not merely constructive possession (B) holding in a similar factual situation that the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction because it had no actual or constructive possession of the letters of credit involved (C) recognizing theory of constructive possession (D) holding that constructive possession need not be exclusive but may be shared by others (E) holding that k no wing possession can be demonstrated by proof of either actual or constructive possession
Example Output: holding that the phrase possession or custody in 5225b requires actual and not merely constructive possession

Example Input: 53 S.W.3d 368, 52 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ) (recognizing that "[t]he measure of damages to [personal] property that is totally destroyed [by another's negligence] is its reasonable market value when destroyed"); Shaw Tank Cleaning Co. v. Tex. Pipeline Co., 442 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tex.Civ.App.-AmariIlo 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (upholding replacement damages awarded by jury for destruction of crude oil storage tank by fire negligently caused by defendant). When the damaged property "has neither a market value nor a real value, but it is shown what it would cost to replace or reproduce the article, then such cost is the measure of recovery." Int'l-Great N. R.R. Co., 46 S.W.2d at 670; Pringle v. Nowlin, 629 S.W.2d 154, 157 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). It is the plaintiffs burden to show which
Holding statements: (A) holding that because plaintiffs speech occurred in the reception area of the judge executives office it was only the nature of that limited area and not the general public nature of fiscal court budding within which the office was located that was determinative of the forum (B) holding that claimant was entitled to workers compensation because he was injured in a parking lot which was leased by his employer (C) holding plaintiff entitled to replace ment value of gold leaf professional sign located in the window of his leased law office when defendants intentionally destroyed it (D) holding that a plaintiff who did not replace a destroyed tractortrailer due to lack of funds and failure to find a suitable replacement could recover for loss of use of the vehicle limited to a reasonable time (E) holding that damage to building and personal property as a result of fire negligently caused by defendant was to be measured by reasonable cash market value of the property at the time it was destroyed by the fire or if it was not totally destroyed by the diminution in its fair market value before and after the fire
Example Output:
holding that because plaintiffs speech occurred in the reception area of the judge executives office it was only the nature of that limited area and not the general public nature of fiscal court budding within which the office was located that was determinative of the forum