See, e.g., Kenneally v. Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 334-35 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming decision not to take proffered testimony on applicability of bad faith exception). Case 4:16-cv-00469-K Document 65 Filed 09/16/16 Page 13 of 16 PageID 2043 10 protective orders in same circumstances as Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c)). No exception to Younger abstention applies, and the Court should dismiss the complaint.16 D.

(Attorney General “must not act arbitrarily” in issuing CID but “need only have a belief” that unlawful conduct has or is occurring). 19 See Idaho Code § 48-611(2); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 367.240(2); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 6(7); Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-12(G); Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. §§ 15.10, 17.61; Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.86.080, 19.86.110; see also N.Y. C.P.L.R. 2304.

6(a) to resist the subpoena if the lawyer’s testimony or the production of documents would violate either the attorney-client privilege or the ethical duty of confidentiality. As an initial step, the lawyer should seek a protective order, bring a motion to quash, or serve upon the attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials in compliance with the applicable discovery rules, such as Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c), 45(b), and 45(d)(1). The lawyer should seek to limit the subpoena or court order on any legitimate available grounds, such as the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, confidentiality, relevance, breadth, or burden.