After a car accident, the Fishers sued Mr. Green and included an underinsured motorists claim against Erie Insurance. The trial court ordered an in camera review of certain documents after Erie objected to a discovery request. Erie filed an interlocutory appeal and argued that the order for an in camera review was immediately appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 313. The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction because the trial court’s order did not satisfy the third prong of the definition of a collateral order. The Court held that the order did not qualify for immediate collateral review because the order did not compel disclosure. However, suppose after an in camera review, the trial court orders disclosure. In that case, the party asserting privilege may seek collateral review because the disclosure of documents cannot be undone, and subsequent appellate review would be rendered moot.
