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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[Q]: use of low-beam headlights within 500 feet of an oncoming vehicle. While we recognize that drivers may be accustomed to quickly flashing their high-beam headlights at an oncoming vehicle as a signal to dim headlights, there is no evidence in this case that the officer was driving with his high-beam headlights. Furthermore, the statute does not provide any exceptions for the momentary flashing of high-beam headlights. Thus, we must conclude the statute prohibits the use of high-beam headlights within 500 feet of an oncoming vehicle, for any length of time and for any purpose. [ 12] We recognize that at least one other appellate court has interpreted similar statutory language and reached the opposite conclusion. See Waukesha County v. Meinhardt, 2001 WI App 146, 9-10, 630 N.W.2d 277 (<HOLDING>). In another case involving a similar statute,
Holding statements: (A) holding that meinhardt did not commit a violation by flashing his highbeam headlights two times at an oncoming vehicle because the plain language of the statute did not prohibit the quick flashing of highbeam headlights (B) recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect (C) holding that general statement of intent does not override plain language of statute (D) holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute (E) holding the trial judge did not commit reversible error through the chosen method of remedying the batson violation
[A]: (A)

[Q]: discretion. Commonwealth v. Collins, 598 Pa. 397, 957 A.2d 237, 272 (2008). As noted, discovery in death penalty collateral proceedings is permissible only upon leave of court, and only for good cause shown. Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(E)(2). " 'A showing of good cause requires more than just a generic demand for potentially exculpatory evidence.' " Collins, 957 A.2d at 272 (quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 579 Pa. 119, 855 A.2d 726, 750 (2004)). We agree with the Commonwealth that Elliott has failed to demonstrate that the PCRA court abused its discretion by denying Elliott's request for additional discovery. Elliott has not identified any document that was withheld from him that would have been exculpatory, and his claims to the contrary constitute mere speculation. See Hanible, 30 A.3d at 484 (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Carson, 913 A.2d at 261
Holding statements: (A) holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause (B) holding that the government is not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury (C) holding that record must show that evidence is exculpatory for defendant to establish brady violation (D) holding that speculation that production of requested documents might reveal exculpatory evidence is insufficient to establish good cause for discovery (E) holding that conjecture that opportunity to review homicide file might yield exculpatory evidence is inadequate to demonstrate good cause for discovery
[A]: (E)

[Q]: Mont. 200, 936 P.2d 814, 818-20 (1997) (allowing discovery of injuries caused by similar products and discovery about various product models as relevant to whether the design was unreasonably dangerous and whether the defendant was aware of the danger and a viable alternative design); Calo v. Ahearn, 135 A.D.2d 458, 522 N.Y.S.2d 555, 556 (1987) ("Although the vehicle type of the automobile involved in the accident was the subject of the recall campaign, it is undisputed that the Ahearn vehicle was not among those listed in the recall. However, it was within the legitimate scope of discovery to attempt to determine if the recall campaign erroneously omitted vehicles with the same or similar steering defects."); Culligan v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA, 110 F.R.D. 122, 124-25 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (<HOLDING>). We are especially disinclined to second-guess
Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence of subsequent measures was admissible to show the feasibility of a design change (B) holding that information about postmanufacture testing was relevant and discoverable in atv rollover case even though it dealt with models other than the atv model at issue in order to show feasibility of alternative designs (C) holding that claim preclusion did not apply even though the legal theory at issue in that case was addressed in a previous case because the case at issue was based on a different set of operative facts (D) holding prior drug convictions relevant to show that defendant had knowledge and intent necessary to possess drugs at issue in case (E) holding prior conclusion properly considered dicta rather than alternative holding because prior ra tionale could not be considered as alternative holding because it could not support the judgment in the case
[A]:
(B)