What discretionary call does a judge have to make in the context of coordination?

The specific discretionary call in this case was the ultimate conclusion that the benefit to be derived by coordination was outweighed by complications and problems the judge anticipated would result from attempted coordination. This decision, we apprehend, is one not necessarily made better by a trial court judge than by an appellate tribunal. In accordance with the test set forth in our above quote from People v. Louis, this is a decision which requires the "exercise [of] judgment about the values that animate legal principles," and hence "the concerns of judicial administration ... favor the appellate court, and the question should be classified as one of law and reviewed de novo." (People v. Louis, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 986-987, 232 Cal.Rptr. 110, 728 P.2d 180.) We therefore proceed in our analysis on the basis of plenary review.