Short answer. Yes. The proceedings at the preliminary conference are recorded, and once it concludes, the court issues a resolution embodying every action taken, the stipulations and admissions made, and the issues defined during the conference. That resolution then becomes the parties' single reference document for how the rest of the case is expected to proceed.

What the law says

The proceedings at such conference shall be recorded and, upon the conclusion thereof, a resolution shall be issued embodying all the actions taken therein, the stipulations and admissions made, and the issues defined.

Rule 48, Section 2 — Record of the conference. Read the full provision →

Recording is mandatory, not optional

Section 2 requires that the preliminary conference not simply be an off-the-record discussion. The proceedings at such conference shall be recorded — whatever is said and agreed at the conference becomes part of a documented record, not an informal exchange left to memory that could later be disputed by either side or by counsel who was not personally present at the conference itself.

A resolution captures the outcome

The recording is followed by a formal output: upon the conclusion thereof, a resolution shall be issued embodying all the actions taken therein, the stipulations and admissions made, and the issues defined. This resolution becomes the written distillation of everything the conference accomplished, giving both the parties and the court a single reference document to consult going forward in the case.

Why this documentation matters

Because Rule 48's next section makes the results of the conference binding on the subsequent proceedings, having both a recorded proceeding and a formal resolution gives the parties a clear, referenceable account of exactly what was stipulated, admitted, or defined — reducing later disputes over what actually happened at the conference, who agreed to which terms, and what issues remain genuinely contested going forward.

Why this documentation step comes before the binding effect

Section 2's recording and resolution requirement sets up the mechanism that makes Section 3's binding effect workable at all — a resolution can only control the subsequent proceedings if it exists in a form both the court and the parties can point back to. Without the record and the written resolution, there would be no reliable way to determine what was actually stipulated at the conference, which would make holding a party to those stipulations later far harder to justify or even enforce.

Who this obligation falls on and what an incomplete resolution risks

The duty to record the conference and issue the resolution falls on the Court of Appeals, not on the parties, so a litigant is not the one responsible for ensuring the recording happens — that responsibility rests with the court conducting the conference. Section 2 also implicitly limits what the resolution should contain: it embodies the actions taken, the stipulations and admissions made, and the issues defined, not the parties' private discussions or off-the-record positions that were floated but never actually agreed upon or memorialized. A resolution that omits a stipulation the parties genuinely reached at the conference creates the same practical problem Section 3's five-day objection window exists to address, since a party relying on an incomplete record may need to move promptly to have the omission corrected before the resolution takes on its controlling effect.

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.