But Greeneyes, IMO NoPain makes a very good point (actually the same point I made yesterday).  It comes down to this:

1) No mediation report has been filed and the Mediator has disobeyed the rules.

2) No mediation report has been filed - with the blessing of Judge Ward (forget the rules).

3) A mediation report has been given confidentially, due to the reasons NoPain and I have addressed (e.g., there was at least one settlement, and this info cannot be transmitted publically - where only a very small segment of the public becomes aware - because this result is a "material event" for publically held companies, which would be very problematic for the court).

Which of these makes the most sense? 

I find 1 and 2, above, difficult to believe. 

IMO, 3 makes the most sense, simply because I cannot believe that the mediator or the judge would just blow off the "Rules". 

Granted, 3 does ignore one aspect of the rules, that being the method of information transmittal.  But it seems to me that the intent of the rule is to simply get the results to the judge.  If the cited method of data transmittal is problematic, you work around it while satisfying the intent. 

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but that's the way I see it.

We'll probably find out soon enough.....

JMHOs,

SGE