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.

[EX Q]: documents that may be exempt from disclosure under the Sunshine Law. See Chasnoff v. Bd. of Police Comm'rs, 334 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (noting trial court reviewed investigative file log of 59 documents in camera to determine disclosure under Sunshine Law); Bill, 935 S.W.2d at 663 (noting trial court granted in camera review of retirement benefit records of government employees; subsequently finding records exempt from disclosure under Sunshine Law); accord State ex rel. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctr. v. Keet, 678 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Mo. banc 1984) (in discovery context, trial court has discretion to examine privileged documents in camera to determine whether redaction and production of documents is appropriate); State ex rel. Fusselman v. Belt. 893 S.W.2d 898, 901 (Mo.App. W.D.1995) (<HOLDING>). In light of the Sunshine Law and the Missouri
Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense (B) holding that where a party claims a document is privileged and the trial court fails to conduct an in camera review or balancing test the trial court has departed from the essential requirements of the law (C) holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant (D) holding in camera review by trial court to determine whether crime stoppers information contained brady information would meet the balance of defendants constitutional rights against the states interest in fostering law enforcement (E) holding trial court should have reviewed records requested by criminal defendant in camera to determine whether they contained exculpatory evidence while protecting against unnecessary publication of privileged information
[EX A]: holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense

[EX Q]: options," including by streamlining communication between the distressed borrower and foreclosing party. See Assemb. B. 278, 2011-2012 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2012); S.B. 900, 2011-2012 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2012). There has been a wave of litigation in state and federal courts challenging various aspects of the MERS System. Almost all of the relevant law is state rather than federal. The results under state law have been inconsistent. See Weber, supra, at 246-56 (cataloguing the "schizophrenic position of state courts" on issues relating to the MERS System). Some state supreme courts have upheld the MERS System on issues ranging from foreclosure authority to recording requirements. See, e.g., Renshaw v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 155 Idaho 656, 315 P.3d 844, 846-47 (2013) (<HOLDING>); Jackson v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys.,
Holding statements: (A) holding that mers lacked standing to foreclose as the lenders nominee (B) holding that because mers receives no payments on the debt it is not the beneficiary even though it is so designated in the deed of trust (C) holding that mers is an ineligible beneficiary within the terms of the washington deed of trust act if it never held the promissory note or other debt instrument secured by the deed of trust and that characterizing mers as the beneficiary has the capacity to deceive and may give rise to an action under the consumer protection act (D) holding that mers may be a beneficiary as nominee for the lender that assignments of the deed of trust between mers members need not be recorded that mers was not liable to the borrower in negligence and that the idaho consumer protection act did not provide a cause of action to the borrower (E) holding that mers was not the beneficiary of a deed of trust under the oregon trust deed act absent conveyance to mers of the beneficial right to repayment and that mers could not hold or transfer legal title to the deed as the lenders nominee
[EX A]: holding that mers lacked standing to foreclose as the lenders nominee

[EX Q]: being fired, for failing to comply with a work requirement that conflicts with his religious practice. See, e.g., Baker v. Home Depot, 445 F.3d 541, 546 (2d Cir. 2006); Cooper v. Oak Rubber Co., 15 F.3d 1375, 1379 n.1 (6th Cir. 1994). We do hot have to rule definitively on that issue, however, because in any event, Kellogg cannot now retract its concession in the. district court that, for purposes pf the summary-judgment motions, Tabura made a prima facie, claim. 6 . The EEOC also points to its' own compliance manual, which "states that an '[ejmployer violates Title VII if it offers only a partial accommodation where full accommodation would not pose an undue hardship.' " (EEOC Br, 11 (quoting EEOC Compliance Manual 12 (R v. Universal Mfg. Corp,, 914 F.2d 71, 73-74 (5th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). 9 . See Porter v. City of Chi., 700 F.3d 944,
Holding statements: (A) holding employer did not reasonably accommodate employees reli gious practices where employer accommodated employees request to attend religious festival during scheduled work shift but did not address employees second religious practice of refraining from work during the week of the festival (B) holding that a change in employer from one federal contractor to another caused employees no lack of work (C) holding that the cba preempted an intentional infliction claim that was based on a failure to change an employees work schedule so he could attend friday religious services (D) holding that employer is not vicariously hable for employees negligence while driving to work where such driving conferred no special benefit upon employer other than to make employees services available (E) holding in an employees action to recover for injury sustained during work against the employer and other defendants did not state an intentional tort claim against contractor
[EX A]:
holding that a change in employer from one federal contractor to another caused employees no lack of work