and to point out that he still has other possible remedies available to him. I agree with the majority that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009), effectively precludes collateral appeals of discovery orders, even when important privileges safeguarding private or confidential communications are at issue. Despite the general rule that discovery orders are not directly appealable, courts have sometimes considered the propriety of discovery orders on review by extraordinary writ. See Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 109-12, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964) (granting petition for writ of mandamus to challenge Rule 35 order); see also, e.g., SEC v. Rajaratnam, 622 F.3d 159, 167-72 (2d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). “The Supreme Court has explained that the
holding that mandamus is appropriate remedy because temporary order granting visitation is not appealable holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable holding the district courts order to turn over wiretapped conversations to the sec was not immediately appealable under mohawk but granting the alternative petition for writ of mandamus holding that mandamus was appropriate remedy because temporary order granting visitation is not appealable recognizing in the context of a petition for a writ of mandamus that although the district court retained jurisdiction over the case following the governments mandamus petition the district court justifiably could defer trial until resolution of the appellate proceedings had the government prevailed on the merits of the mandamus petition  the trial strategies of the government as well as the defense would surely have been altered