With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that mandamus was appropriate remedy because temporary order granting visitation is not appealable
B: holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable
C: holding that mandamus is appropriate remedy because temporary order granting visitation is not appealable
D: 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
D.