It all depends, first on the assertions for rationale on which any appeal is filed, second on the way it is filed and third on the reaction of the court to which it is appealed.
I take a different view than one expressed earlier that a discovery appeal can only be initiated once a trial is concluded with a verdict. A writ of mandamus appeal can be filed after any judge's order that requires action. Any such action is no more expensive than any other appeal. Judge Sweeney's order to compel release of documents is precisely such a qualifying order/event and, thus, can be appealed BEFORE any compliance is required that would release documents or complete any other stipulated action then under review.
All court actions are reviewable under appeal, and no court order is automatically enforced when a litigant cries "foul" and objects to a remedy stipulated by the court that is claimed to violate any litigant's legal rights. The court cannot say to the government: "Your objections to release of privileged documents" can only be weighed for merit after they have already been released by the court and made public without your consent after the case is over." Sorry, but I have to disagree on that conclusion, if that's what it meant, as I at least interpreted it.
So, IF the government files an appeal, it MUST be re-affirmed, re-heard or rejected either by an en banc hearing in the same court in which the order was initially issued, or considered by a higher court of appeals. How that concludes depends on the filing mechanism that might be initiated by the party objecting. Most typically, however, this would be an action in the one-tier-up court of superiority. Exactly as with the Sammons appeal that was recently docketed in such manner with the Court of Appeals, one tier elevated from the Court of Claims.
The consequences are severalfold, if such an appeal is formalized by government, and, no, I have no way to predict what any such ruling might entail. The list of possibilities could eventually include: affirming the order to compel, forcing the documents to be released or risk contempt. Re-appeal to the next higher up jurisdiction, including the Supreme Court, in such case. A mediated settlement on document redaction or protection that is satisfactory to both parties. A rebuke of the initial judge's order to compel, whose conditions then become vacated. Or other eventualities or more unusual rulings that the appeals court might designate.
I believe the government will simply file a motion to stay the Sweeney/Fairholme case while Sammons wends its way through the maze. Thereafter, we'll just have to see if any next steps take hold. Said another way, more delays on the horizon when two immovable objects meet in confrontation over one immutable impasse involving 11,000 in-play documents.
We will all know something concrete very quickly on all of this which is to everyone's benefit. Including me, since I just want this stuff to conclude.
JMHO.
