Can a judge order a case straight to trial, skipping conferences, if it's urgent enough?

In genuinely exceptional circumstances, a judge has some discretion to streamline or adjust the usual sequence of conferences, but sending a case straight to trial while entirely skipping the conference stages isn't a routine or easily obtained outcome, since those steps serve real purposes — sorting out disclosure, narrowing the issues, and giving both sides a fair chance to prepare — that don't disappear just because a matter feels urgent to one party.

Where genuine urgency exists, the more common and realistic route is to seek urgent interim relief through a motion, which can address a pressing problem quickly, while the underlying case still proceeds through the normal conference and disclosure steps toward an eventual trial or settlement. This allows an immediate concern to be addressed without abandoning the process that ensures a fair, well-prepared trial if the matter doesn't settle first. Anyone facing a genuinely urgent situation should focus on the urgent motion process rather than asking to bypass the entire pre-trial structure.