Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to appeal an order overruling a claim of privilege would both cause the privilege-holder’s fears to be realized and deprive the privilege-holder of any meaningful remedy. Absent a stay and an immediate appeal, the possessor of putatively privileged material will repeat to others what the client told him or her in confidence, and, if it turns out that the claim of privilege was meritorious, a later appeal will not be able to undo the harm. Once putatively privileged material is in the open, the bell has been rung, and cannot be unrung by a later appeal. See Kennedy, supra at 944 (“There is no effective means of reviewing[,] after a final judgment!,] an order requiring the production of putatively protected material.” (quoting Commonwealth v. Dennis, 859 A.2d at 1270, 1278 (Pa.2004)) (<HOLDING>) (alterations in Kennedy)). In our view, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire (B) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (C) holding that appellant is entitled to prosecutors voir dire notes if they were actually used by prosecutor to refresh his memory (D) holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order (E) holding that an order requiring a prosecutor to disclose his notes from voir dire over a claim of workproduct privilege was immediately appealable under rule 313
Output (English): holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable