Short answer. Generally yes. The resolution from the conference controls the case's subsequent proceedings, subject to modification to prevent manifest injustice, unless within five days from notice a party satisfactorily shows valid cause why the resolution should not be followed. That five-day window is short, so act quickly if you disagree with what was recorded.

What the law says

Subject to such modifications which may be made to prevent manifest injustice, the resolution in the preceding section shall control the subsequent proceedings in the case unless, within five days from notice thereof, any party shall satisfactorily show valid cause why the same should not be followed.

Rule 48, Section 3 — Binding effect of the results of the conference. Read the full provision →

The conference resolution generally binds the case going forward

Section 3 gives the conference resolution real teeth. It provides that, subject to a narrow safeguard, the resolution in the preceding section shall control the subsequent proceedings in the case. The stipulations, admissions, and issue definitions from the conference are not merely advisory — they shape how the rest of the case unfolds, including what evidence and arguments the parties can still raise later.

A five-day window to show valid cause otherwise

A party is not entirely without recourse if the resolution turns out to be wrong or unfair in some way. The resolution controls unless, within five days from notice thereof, any party shall satisfactorily show valid cause why the same should not be followed. That window is short, so a party who disagrees with the resolution needs to act quickly.

A safety valve against manifest injustice

Even beyond that five-day objection window, the resolution remains subject to such modifications which may be made to prevent manifest injustice. This preserves some flexibility for the court to correct a resolution that would otherwise produce a genuinely unjust result, though this is meant as a safety valve rather than a routine avenue for revisiting agreed stipulations whenever a party has second thoughts.

Why stipulations are treated as binding by default

Treating the preliminary conference resolution as controlling gives the process real weight — if a party could freely disavow stipulations made at the conference without showing valid cause, the whole exercise of narrowing issues and admissions would accomplish little. Binding the parties to what was actually agreed, subject only to the five-day objection window and the manifest injustice safeguard, is what makes the preliminary conference a meaningful step in preparing the case rather than a formality both sides can simply ignore later.

Who is bound and what a late objection costs

Section 3 binds every party who took part in the preliminary conference — a party cannot selectively treat only the stipulations favorable to their own side as controlling while disregarding the rest. Missing the five-day window does not automatically foreclose relief entirely, since the manifest-injustice safeguard remains available, but that safeguard is deliberately narrower than a simple valid-cause showing, so a party who lets the five days lapse faces a higher bar to unwind the resolution than one who objects promptly. Treating the five-day period as a formality to be dealt with later, rather than a real deadline, is the most common way a party loses the easier path to challenging a resolution it disagrees with.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.