IMO Because of the request for expedited ruling on Higgins testimony, we know settlement has not yet occured. Also, if we were at an impass or a mutually agreed continuation of mediaton, wouldn't the mediator have filed the report in a timely fashion? Both those situations are routine, are they not? So from that, can we assume that the situation is not routine? The fact that they might be at an impass because we are waiting on rulings, is still an impass, is it not? Why not file the mediation report as an impass and leave it at that? Would the mediator take into consideration that unless there is some kind of agreement before that ruling, the ruling itself will not end the litigation because it will be appealed. It seems to me that he would attempt to hammer out settlements beforehand. I continue to believe the settlements are already in palce. Question is whether it will be the settlement behind door #1 (Big Bucks) or door #2 (Little Bucks). IMHO If the mediator didn't at least attempt to do this, he would not be doing his job. Opty