This can be accomplished by setting the case for trial, taking the motion under advisement, and treating it as a defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of a plaintiff's case. Finally, parties feel a greater sense of justice if their cases are resolved at trial rather than on summary judgment. As a judge, I would prefer to preside over a short trial than wade through summary judgment papers. Than Summary Judgment A settlement conference which gives the parties an opportunity to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their case is more productive than the summary judgment exercise. Parties can explore the merits of the case in a settlement conference and accomplish much more towards the ultimate resolution of the dispute.
Most parties are more interested in achieving a resolution than in procedure.
Parties are more willing to settle when they have had the opportunity to hear first hand from the court and from the other side. Satisfaction with the justice system will increase if parties have an opportunity to tell their story and actively participate in the settlement process. Finally, judicial resources will be saved in those cases which settle without the necessity for summary judgment and the attendant appeals. Furthermore, if a firm trial date is set rather than a summary judgment ruling date, all parties are more serious in their approach to settlement and the playing field is leveled in negotiations. Plaintiffs who have a poor case will confront this fact sooner, and defendants will be more realistic.