Is it necessary or expedient to impose a term of time on a cap and bottle?

I am unable to conclude that it is "necessary or expedient" in the circumstances to impose the term requested by the plaintiff. I exercise my discretion against the plaintiff because: 1. The plaintiff has not offered to supply to the defendant any report he has or may obtain as to the condition of the cap and bottle. 2. The only reason given by the plaintiff for the condition is that he wishes to see the report when obtained. He does not allege any specific prejudice if the report is not made available to him. It has not been suggested that there is any imbalance between the parties which should be corrected. (See: Bates v. Stubbs, supra, at p. 71). 3. The defendant says the written report of the expert who examines the cap and bottle is necessary for the preparation and presentation of its case at trial. 4. This is not a situation where the object to be examined may be destroyed during the test (as disclosed in the majority judgments in Blackstock v. Patterson, supra). There is no suggestion that the plaintiff will not be able to arrange its own examination later, or that the object may be damaged or its natural or chemical properties materially changed.