Only such information as is reasonably necessary should be put before the court by counsel and mediators. What if a party to a particularly fractious and emotional dispute attacked or threatened an opposing party or counsel during a mediation session ? Should those parties and the mediator be prevented by the mediation confidentiality privileges from alerting the trial court to such conduct ? We think not, but such would be the absurd result if we follow the uncritical interpretation urged by appellants. Muzzling the parties and the mediator in such circumstances would not only effectively preclude a party from seeking and obtaining sanctions. Because the court would have no way of learning that its orders had been disobeyed or that some serious misconduct occurred which warrants judicial oversight, the court would be stripped of its inherent power to police and control its own processes. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 227, and Code Civ. Proc., 177.5 the court on its own motion or that of a party can impose sanctions up to $ 1,500 for bad faith violation of court orders or failure to participate in good faith in any court-ordered conference; Code Civ. Proc., 128, subd. (a)(2)-(5) court has power to enforce its orders, provide for orderly conduct of its proceedings, compel obedience to its orders, and control conduct of persons connected with a judicial proceeding before the court; 177, subd. (2) court has power to compel obedience to its lawful orders; 1209, subds. (a)(2),(4) and (5) civil contempt committed by breach of the peace or boisterous conduct tending to interrupt a trial or judicial proceeding, abuse of the process of proceedings of the court, and by disobedience of any lawful order or process of the court).