Appreciate all the posts on the subject.  The part of the process that has me a bit puzzled is the clarification of issues for the mediator.  I am led to believe, from what I read that, initially both sides supply the mediator and the other side a list of the issues. I doubt the J2.5 would just copy one of those pacers and hand it to the mediator.  Or would they?  We know, and the mediator knows, many of those defenses are just smoke, and submitting them would probably be an indication that mediation is probably going to be a waste of time.  So if the J2.5 actually submit what they hold as the real issues,  while that could lead to a negotiated settlement, does it not benefit the the plaintiffs should we go to trial? Perhaps I am misunderstanding something.  And even if I'm mistaken about the other side getting a copy of the issues list, wouldn't both sides pick up on what the key issues were once mediation is under way?  To me, mediation is sounding like it favors the plaintiffs, so I must have it wrong.  Or do I?  Opty