The defendants brought a motion seeking an order for potentially destructive examination of a fire-damaged dishwasher to identify its precise components and manufacturers.
The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the request was premature and could prejudice their ability to add parts manufacturers.
The court found insufficient evidence that destructive testing was the only way to identify the dishwasher and its parts.
It ordered the defendants to provide a list of potential parts manufacturers so the plaintiffs could notify them and invite participation in testing.
Both the defendants' motion for destructive testing and the plaintiffs' cross-motion for a further affidavit of documents and discovery plan were dismissed as premature.
