United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Daspin, 557 F. App'x 46

SEC issued an investigative subpoena to Edward Daspin, who is the target of the SEC investigation; the district court ordered him to be deposed under certain health-related safeguards.
Daspin’s physician submitted an affidavit expressing medical concerns and sought compensation for the physician’s time; Daspin sought further medical investigation and asked the court to require SEC to pay his physician.
The district court declined to order further medical inquiry, required deposition under modified conditions, and ruled Daspin (as target) must pay his physician’s fee.
Daspin appealed the district court’s December 5, 2013 order and moved to stay his deposition pending appeal; the SEC moved for summary affirmance.
The Second Circuit considered the stay factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, harm to non-moving party, public interest) and whether summary affirmance was appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a stay of deposition pending appeal should issue	SEC: decline stay; deposition may proceed under district court safeguards	Daspin: likely to succeed on appeal; faces irreparable harm, including being compelled to testify and health risks	Stay denied — Daspin failed to show likelihood of success or irreparable harm
Whether district court abused discretion by refusing additional medical inquiry or action based on physician affidavit	SEC: district court’s protective-order measures were sufficient	Daspin: district court should have ordered further medical investigation and given weight to physician’s affidavit	No abuse of discretion; safeguards were adequate
Whether SEC must pay Daspin’s physician’s fees for compliance	SEC: respondent (target) must bear costs of compliance	Daspin: SEC should compensate physician because cost was necessary to comply with subpoena	SEC not required to pay; Rockefeller permits payment only when respondent is not target but a mere repository
Whether summary affirmance is appropriate	SEC: outcome is obvious; affirm district court	Daspin: appeal not frivolous; merits exist	Summary affirmance denied as too rare, but court affirmed on merits given inevitable mootness of appeal

In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (stay-factors framework and appellate review principles)
Gallela v. Onassis, 487 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. 1973) (district court discretion over protective orders for depositions)
F.T.C. v. Rockefeller, 591 F.2d 182 (2d Cir. 1979) (government may be ordered to pay subpoena compliance costs only when respondent is not the investigation target)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (likelihood of success and irreparable injury are most critical stay factors)
Wisdom Imp. Sales Co. v. Labatt Brewing Co., 339 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2003) (definition of irreparable harm)
Brenntag Int’l Chem., Inc. v. Bank of India, 175 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 1999) (equitable relief and restoring parties to prior positions)
Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 596 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1979) (irreparable harm must be imminent, not speculative)
United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 10 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard for summary affirmance)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolousness defined for in forma pauperis contexts, cited for frivolous-appeal concept)
In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 804 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986) (stays to preserve potentially meritorious appeals)