So this question is a bit tougher to answer. I used the probation officer analogy to basically suggest that the defendant does not have to take the magistrate's recommendation per se; however, those recommendations usually fix an equitable solution in the judge's mind. The last minute deal-making then comes into play and the discussion usually goes straight to brass tacks.
The games are over at that point and jury selection can begin as early as the next morning. From what I understand about the facts of this case, CCGI would be nuts to take this to a jury and so while they are not forced to take the recommendations, they stand to lose a lot more with a negative verdict against them. That verdict also becomes a material event that weighs heavily on a stock even with an appeal in the works. They could try to stretch things out with an appeals process, but the higher courts will also consider the recommendations of the magistrate because they are considered a fact-finder and damages may compound.
So the short answer is no, they don't have to take it, but the long answer is - they have heavy pressure on them to accept the findings. If not, then all bets are off and rulings can come swiftly and with a lot less mercy by a judge who might be wanting to get this off their crowded docket and feel deeply unsympathetic to a defendant not wanting to listen to their fellow court officer. Someone they clearly respect or they would not have appointed them in the first place. All in my opinion.
