With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Mount Hope’s subpoena was facially valid under Rule 45. The Church was not required to include evidence refuting First Amendment protection in its request. Because Mount Hope and its counsel could reasonably assert that First Amendment privilege did not invalidate the subpoena, they could issue discovery process based on that reading without fear of sanctions. The Church also had objective reason to subpoena the information and therefore complied with existing law under 45(c)(1). Appellees also contend that Mount Hope’s position means that a Rule 45(c)(1) sanction requires a finding of bad faith before sanctions may be imposed. But Mount Hope has not so contended. Under Rule 26(g), we have held that bad faith is sufficient to invoke Rule 45(c)(1) sanctions. See Mattel, 353 F.3d at 814 (<HOLDING>). But we have never stated that bad faith is

A: holding sanctions order not final where the amount of sanctions had not yet been determined
B: holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial
C: holding sanctions were appropriate where party filed motions merely for purposes of delay
D: holding that sanctions were appropriate where the subpoena was served for the improper purpose of exerting pressure on the witnesses not to testify
D.