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.

Input: Consider Input: WL 687033, at *1 (D.Md. Feb. 29, 2008) (citing Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993)). Courts in the Fourth Circuit deny leave to amend a complaint past the deadline established by a scheduling order where the moving party has been careless in developing his claims or where he has failed to satisfactorily account for his failure to do so. Compare Whichard v. Specialty Restaurants Corp., 220 F.R.D. 439, 441 (D.Md.2004) (denying plaintiffs motion to join an additional defendant five months after the court imposed deadline because plaintiff had ample notice before the deadline that the original defendant might not be the right party) with Long v. Blair, No. 2:09-CV-00349, 2010 WL 1930220 (S.D.W.Va. May 12, 2010) (<HOLDING>). After a movant satisfies the good cause
Holding statements: (A) holding that good cause did not exist where counsel waited months after filing of the pleadings to propound written discovery and did not take oral depositions of known key individuals to their claims until after the deadline for amending the complaint (B) holding that a change in the theory of recovery and one prior amendment is not sufficient to deny a motion to amend the complaint where no evidence of bad faith existed (C) holding that denial of leave to amend was appropriate because the plaintiff sought to amend his complaint two years after filing his complaint on the eve of trial when discovery was complete (D) holding that district court did not abuse its discretion where it determined that plaintiffs failed to show good cause to amend complaint after dispositive motion deadline (E) holding that good cause existed where the plaintiff did not establish a sufficient evidentiary basis to support new claims until after the deadline for amending his complaint and moved to amend immediately after the new evidence came to light

Output: holding that good cause did not exist where counsel waited months after filing of the pleadings to propound written discovery and did not take oral depositions of known key individuals to their claims until after the deadline for amending the complaint

Input: Consider 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

Output: holding that the phrase possession or custody in 5225b requires actual and not merely constructive possession

Input: Consider Input: an employer based on its status as successor to corporations that had designed and manufactured allegedly defective equipment for their own use. The equipment passed to the successor corporation through a series of mergers. The court held that, but for the merger, plaintiff could have sued the predecessor corporations based on their design and manufacture of the defective equipment. The court concluded that this potential liability survived the merger, "since the obligation upon which [the successor] is being sued arose not out of the employment relation, but rather out of [the] independent business transaction" of the merger itself. Id. at 161, 432 N.Y.S.2d at 885, 412 N.E.2d at 940; see also Schweiner v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 120 Wis.2d 344, 354 N.W.2d 767, 772-73 (1984) (<HOLDING>). A strong dissent in Billy exposed the flaws
Holding statements: (A) holding that a third party holding legal title to property is a necessary party in an action for equitable distribution (B) holding the family court has jurisdiction to join third parties when property is alleged to be marital but is owned by a third party (C) holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant (D) holding that plaintiff could recover royalties only for products manufactured by defendant after disclosure of secret but before issuance of patent (E) holding that but for merger plaintiff could have sued predecessor that manufactured defective equipment as third party but not analyzing basis for such a suit
Output: holding that a third party holding legal title to property is a necessary party in an action for equitable distribution