How are those Coleman indictments coming along?

This is so stupid, there's no way that Coleman gets the election overturned. He's just wasting money (his, Franken's, and the US taxpayers) and time. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that he can't move on with his life.

Any sense from the Minnesota general public if they're getting tired of the triple Judge Ito trial? Is there any specific thing they can do to speed this up?

This actually is a smart move on the judges part. One of the primary basis for appeal would be if the judges improperly precluded evidence. Basically, the motion at issue was to preclude evidence which is always problematic. The preclusion of evidence would give coleman a legitimate grounds for appeal. What they need to do is come up with a plan, that coleman signs off on, to somehow expedite the process and at the same time cutting off a ground for appeal by coleman.

It can be done and I would guess that the judges will come up with something. They have to, because this is really beyond absurd.

I think the judges adopted a policy of giving Coleman enough rope to hang himself, and they are just waiting this out a little longer. There is absolutely no way the court will allow Coleman to plod through almost 5,000 ballots without showing in advance what the errors are.
They are also mindful of the fact that any decision they make against Coleman (especially ruling in Franken's favor prior to a final resolution on the merits) creates another appeal issue.
You put those two ideas together, and the decision of the court to 1) deny Franken's motion, and then 2) demand a meeting with the attorneys to address the issue, indicates that the court is looking for some way to cut this off or substantially reduce the timeline, without giving any extra handles to Coleman.
Coleman's legal team has failed to provide one of the most fundamental elements in any trial: the need to tell a simple, understandable story that articulates what is wrong with what happened, and how to make it right. "Count every uncounted ballot, for unknown reasons, even if I previously argued to keep them out and even if they've been reviewed 2 or 3 times already" doesn't cut it.
Franken's is a lot better: "the votes were counted, recounted, reviewed and certified - the results were fair, proper and as accurate as reasonably can be expected, and Coleman's case should be dismissed since he can't articulate or prove any significant reversible error."

I can understand judges not wanting to be overturned on appeal, but who's to say they would be? Appeals are not automatic reversals.

Giving a man enough rope to hang him ultimately winds up in putting the bastard's feet firmly on the ground.

"The Minnesota election court is performing a recount of the recount. This is nothing more than judicial activism of the most blatant variety---the court trespassing into territory specifically and explicitly granted to another branch of government, namely, the Senate itself."

Actually the Contest Court is not recounting the recount. Coleman is contending that there are valid ballots among those excluded because the voters did not complete the required certification (such as being registered, or signing the absentee certification, etc.) Those ballots were never counted, either on election night or during the recount. Much as I decry the slow process, it is fully within Minnesota Election Law which allows a candidate to bring a contest after the recount is complete and certified. Contests require evidence and argument other than just the face of the ballot, which is why it is done in a civil court, and not before a Canvass Board.

Mark Richie, in his speech in DC on Saturday before the Secretary of States conference, said he estimated the whole exercise probably would find another hundred ballots that can legally be counted via the contest process. I get the sense that the Judges are trying to get the parties to agree to speed things up a little -- and they might impose their own speed-up solution if no agreement is forthcoming. In fact, keeping the record relatively appeal proof probably speeds this up in the long run.