The plaintiff, a condominium developer, brought a motion under Rule 32.01 for an order allowing its expert to conduct invasive soil and groundwater testing on the defendants' adjacent property, which operated a dry-cleaning business.
The plaintiff alleged the defendants' property was the source of chlorinated solvent contamination found on its lands.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed testing would not be probative because the plaintiff's extensive excavation and construction had irrevocably altered the subsurface conditions.
The court also applied the equitable doctrine of laches, noting the plaintiff's unreasonable delay in seeking the inspection prejudiced the defendants.
