Section 802.10 - Calendar practice(1) APPLICATION. This section applies to all actions and special proceedings except appeals taken to circuit court; actions seeking the remedy available by certiorari, habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, and quo warranto; actions in which all defendants are in default; provisional remedies; and actions under ss. 49.90 and s. 66.0114 and chs. 48, 54, 102, 108, 227, 348, 767, 778, 799 and 812, and proceedings under chs. 851 to 882.(3) SCHEDULING AND PLANNING. Except in categories of actions and special proceedings exempted under sub. (1), the circuit court may enter a scheduling order on the court's own motion or on the motion of a party. The order shall be entered after the court consults with the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented party. The scheduling order may address any of the following: (a) The time to join other parties.(b) The time to amend the pleadings.(c) The time to file motions.(d) The time to complete discovery.(e) The time, not more than 30 days after entry of the order, to determine the mode of trial, including a demand for a jury trial and payment of fees under s. 814.61(4) .(f) The limitation, control and scheduling of depositions and discovery, including the identification and disclosures of expert witnesses, the limitation of the number of expert witnesses and the exchange of the names of expert witnesses.(g) The dates for conferences before trial, for a final pretrial conference and for trial.(h) The appropriateness and timing of summary judgment adjudication under s. 802.08 .(i) The advisability of ordering the parties to attempt settlement under s. 802.12 .(j) The need for adopting special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions or unusual proof problems.(jm) The need for discovery of electronically stored information.(k) Any other matters appropriate to the circumstances of the case, including the matters under sub. (5) (a) to (h).(5) PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. At a pretrial conference, the court may consider any matter that facilitates the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of the action, including the matters under pars. (a) to (h) and sub. (3) (a) to (k). At a pretrial conference, the court may consider and take appropriate action with respect to all of the following: (a) The formulation and simplification of the issues.(b) The elimination of frivolous claims or defenses.(c) The possibility of obtaining party admissions or stipulations that will avoid unnecessary proof.(d) Any pretrial rulings on the admissibility of evidence, including limitations on the use of expert testimony under s. 907.02 .(e) The identification of witnesses, exhibits and tangible demonstrative evidence.(f) The need and schedule for filing and exchanging pretrial briefs.(g) The dates for further conferences and for trial.(h) The disposition of pending motions.(6) AUTHORITY OF PARTICIPANTS. An attorney for each party participating in any pretrial conference shall have the authority to enter stipulations and to make admissions regarding all matters that the participants may reasonably anticipate may be discussed. The court may require that a party or the party's representative be present or reasonably available by telephone to consider possible settlement of the dispute.(7) SANCTIONS. Violations of a scheduling or pretrial order are subject to ss. 802.05 , 804.12 , 805.03 , and 895.044 .Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 634 (1975); 1975 c. 218; Sup. Ct. Order, 82 Wis. 2d ix (1978); 1979 c. 32 s. 92 (4); 1979 c. 89, 177; 1981 c. 289; 1985 a. 29 s. 3202 (23); Sup. Ct. Order, 141 Wis. 2d xiii (1987); 1993 a. 486; Sup. Ct. Order No. 95-04, 191 Wis. 2d xxi (1995); 1999 a. 150 s. 672; 2001 a. 30 s. 108; 2005 a. 387; Sup. Ct. Order No. 09-01, 2010 WI 67, filed 7-6-10, eff. 1/1/2011; 2011 a. 2. The trial court properly granted default judgment against a party failing to appear at a scheduling conference, but the damage amount was not supported by the record. Gaertner v. 880 Corp., 131 Wis. 2d 492, 389 N.W.2d 59 (Ct. App. 1986). Sub. (7) and s. 805.03 apply in criminal cases. A court has power to sanction a tardy attorney under these sections. Failure to delineate the reasons for the sanctions is an erroneous exercise of discretion. Anderson v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, 219 Wis. 2d 1, 578 N.W.2d 633 (1998), 96-3281. The scheduling questionnaire used by the circuit court in this case was sufficient to satisfy former sub. (3), 2005 stats. The form was a convenient means to ascertain important scheduling information. Although the form consisted of a single sheet, it addressed many of the basic scheduling questions faced by a circuit court attempting to accommodate the potentially complex timing needs of several parties and their counsel. Hefty v. Strickhouser, 2008 WI 96, 312 Wis. 2d 530, 752 N.W.2d 820, 06-1094. The excusable neglect standard set forth in s. 801.15(2) (a) does not apply to untimely motions to enlarge scheduling order deadlines. Rather, this section provides the applicable standards and procedures courts apply to such motions. Parker v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 2009 WI App 42, 317 Wis. 2d 460, 767 N.W.2d 272, 07-1542. A party cannot unilaterally extend the deadline to abide by a scheduling order simply by stating that it reserves the right to do so. 260 North 12th Street, LLC v. DOT, 2010 WI App 138, 329 Wis. 2d 748, 792 N.W.2d 572, 09-1557. Affirmed. 2011 WI 103, 338 Wis. 2d 34, 808 N.W.2d 372, 09-1557.