Loans on Fine Art LLC v. Ian S. Peck

Background

Non-party Gregory Selch, through counsel, submitted a letter motion under the Southern District of New York’s local rules concerning a subpoena issued by Loans on Fine Art LLC (LOFA). The subpoena sought documents and deposition testimony concerning 26 individuals and entities, including six judgment debtors, Mr. Peck’s former wife, and his minor children, over a five-year period.

The letter stated that the court had previously denied a subpoena challenge submitted by Mr. Peck and other respondents because the movants lacked standing to challenge the subpoena on Selch’s behalf. According to the letter, the court did not reach the substance of the subpoena objections in that earlier ruling. Selch asked for an opportunity to present those arguments himself.

Selch’s Arguments

Selch argued that the subpoena was overbroad, unduly burdensome, and sought information outside the proper scope of post-judgment discovery. He objected to requests for broad categories of documents concerning his “relationship” with the judgment debtors and other entities, including communications, financial records, contracts, personal notes, and electronically stored information.

He also argued that the subpoena sought irrelevant, private, and potentially privileged information, including financial-institution records, account-holder information, account numbers, personal investments, personal tax documents, and records involving non-party individuals and minors. Selch maintained that relevant information about the judgment debtors could be obtained from the debtors or their financial institutions rather than from him, a non-party against whom the letter said no claims had been made. He requested that the court quash the subpoena, issue a protective order, and require LOFA to show a legitimate basis for the requested deposition.

Ruling

Judge Jennifer E. Willis denied the requests as untimely. The court stated that Selch waived his right to object because he did not respond to the subpoena within 30 days after it was served on May 16, 2025. The court also stated that, to the extent Selch sought reconsideration of the September 4, 2025 order at docket entry 146, that request was untimely as well.

The order did not decide whether the subpoena was overbroad, burdensome, irrelevant, or privileged. It directed the Clerk of Court to close docket entries 159 and 164.