Kearney

I. Background

A. Events Leading Up to the State Valuation Trial

We must begin, not with the case at hand, but with the ear- lier eminent domain proceedings from which Kearney’s cur- rent claims arose.

Kearney is the former owner of a 52.06-acre parcel of prop- erty in Ramona, California. In June of 2000, RUSD initiated the condemnation process for that property. Pursuant to that, it hired Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. (“CTE”) to conduct a septic system assessment, including percolation KEARNEY v. FOLEY & LARDNER 16183 testing, of Kearney’s land and then issue a report with the results. Those results would reveal the number of residential lots the land could support, and thus determine the land’s value.

CTE entered the property on December 12, 2000. On December 13, Kearney wrote RUSD that it must obtain her approval first. Two days later, Gregory Moser, of Foley & Lardner, LLP, replied on behalf of RUSD, requesting consent to enter to conduct percolation testing in exchange for a copy of the report generated. On December 26, Kearney’s attorney responded, making disclosure of the report a condition of Kearney’s consent. In late January and early…