requirements.” Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Jerry T. O’Brien, Inc., 467 U.S. 735, 746, 104 S.Ct. 2720, 2726, 81 L.Ed.2d 615 (1984). The Court also that the objections portion of the statute was drafted in such a way as to minimize any delay in the agency’s investigation. See id. To this end, the Court noted that a customer wishing to challenge a subpoena “must assert his claim within a short period of time.” Id. A district court, citing Jerry T. Obrien, has held that “[I]f a motion to quash is not timely filed ... a district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the challenge.” Mackey v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, 1997 WL 114801 *1 (D.Conn.1997); see Friedman v. Inspector General, U.S. Dept. of State, 1992 WL 321510, *1 (D.D.C.1992) (<HOLDING>). Applying these standards to the case at hand,
holding untimeliness of motion to modify medical insurance payment did not preclude motion to modify maintenance holding that an order denying a motion to vacate a  1782 order and denying a motion to quash the subpoena was immediately appealable holding that overruling of motion to quash does not affect substantial right and is therefore not final appealable order holding that a denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena is not final and therefore not appealable holding that untimeliness is sufficient grounds for denying a motion to quash