Teacher: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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: party have entered into an explicit agreement that the government will maintain the confidentiality of the disclosed materials." Steinhardt, 9 F.3d at 236 (emphasis supplied) (citing Sealed Case, 676 F.2d at 817). Here, however, neither Lloyd Blankfein nor Goldman Sachs share any such common interest with the SEC or the USAO that saves these disclosures from waiver. Blankfein is simply a third-party witness in this case. He is represented by his own attorneys, not the Government, and neither he nor his attorneys takes a position in the instant dispute. See Blankfein Dep. at 17. Goldman Sachs is not pursuing its own independent claims against Gupta, nor is it coordinating with the SEC or USAO in developing legal theories or analyzing information. See AT & T Corp., 642 F.2d at 1300 (<HOLDING>). The SEC and the USAO chose to meet with
Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit (B) holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation (C) holding that the fcc was not given the power to decide antitrust issues and that its actions do not prevent enforcement of the antitrust laws in federal courts (D) holding no waiver where mci corp shared its work product with department of justice antitrust attorneys as doj and mci had common interests in pursuing their respective public and private antitrust claims against at t (E) holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing
Student:
holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit