Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-09011
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Accent Delight v. Sotheby’s, Judge Furman scheduled a conference about subpoenas seeking confidential settlement information.
The plaintiffs, Sotheby’s, and the three sellers of the Salvator Mundi who received the third-party subpoenas were affected by the scheduled discovery conference and the court’s instructions about evaluating the subpoena requests.
What happened
Accent Delight International Ltd. and other plaintiffs sought information from sellers of Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi through third-party subpoenas. Sotheby’s asked the court to address the dispute over parts of those subpoenas.
The disputed requests sought information about legal claims between Sotheby’s and the sellers and about a later confidential settlement. Sotheby’s argued that the information was largely irrelevant, confidential, and contrary to the policy favoring settlements.
Judge Furman scheduled a telephone conference for July 15, 2020, and directed the parties to discuss whether the requests should be evaluated altogether or document by document. The order did not state that the requests were quashed or that Sotheby’s motion was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Accent Delight International Ltd. v. Sotheby's · No. 1:18-cv-09011
- Jesse Furman
- July 10, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleged that Bouvier paid Sotheby’s $83 million for Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi on May 2, 2013, and that the plaintiffs later paid Bouvier $127 million based on his representation about the purchase price. The plaintiffs also alleged that Sotheby’s provided Bouvier with a valuation of the artwork in January 2015.
The plaintiffs had issued third-party subpoenas to three sellers of the artwork. The subpoenas included requests for information about legal claims between the sellers and Sotheby’s relating to the sale, as well as information about any settlement of those claims. Sotheby’s did not object to a separate request except to the extent it covered information sought by the disputed requests.
Sotheby’s Position
Sotheby’s asked for a conference under the court’s local discovery procedures concerning the disputed subpoena requests. It argued that the requests were irrelevant or only minimally relevant to the claims and defenses in the case, intruded on Sotheby’s confidential business and litigation decisions, and conflicted with the public policy favoring out-of-court settlements.
Sotheby’s stated that the parties had resolved a 2016 declaratory-judgment lawsuit concerning the sellers and Sotheby’s through a confidential settlement. It argued that the plaintiffs would receive substantial discovery about the underlying 2013 sale and the 2015 valuation, making the later dispute and settlement unnecessary and disproportionate subjects of discovery.
Court’s Action
The court directed that a telephone conference would be held on July 15, 2020. The court instructed counsel to be prepared to address whether the issue had to be resolved by quashing the disputed requests in full or denying the request to quash, or whether the court could decide the matter document by document or category by category. The parties were directed to confer beforehand to narrow or resolve the dispute.
The order did not decide whether Requests 1 and 2 should be quashed. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 182. The text provided is therefore a scheduling and discovery-management order, not a merits determination of the subpoena dispute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.