Interrogatories

Interrogatories

Interrogatories are written questions that one party in a civil lawsuit serves on another party as part of the discovery process. The responding party must generally answer the questions in writing and under oath, unless a valid objection applies.

In federal civil litigation, interrogatories are governed primarily by Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 33 permits interrogatories to seek information within the broader scope of Rule 26 discovery, meaning the questions generally must concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.

The Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute provides the current text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

Interrogatories are one of the principal discovery devices in civil litigation. Unlike a deposition, they do not require a witness to appear before an attorney and answer questions orally. Instead, the responding party provides written answers.

This makes interrogatories particularly useful for obtaining organized factual information, identifying witnesses and documents, clarifying allegations, establishing a party’s factual contentions, and narrowing the issues that remain genuinely disputed.

---

What Is an Interrogatory?

An interrogatory is a written question directed by one party to another party.

For example, in a breach-of-contract lawsuit, a plaintiff might serve an interrogatory asking:

Identify each person who participated in negotiating the agreement at issue in this action.

The defendant would generally be required to provide a written response, subject to any proper objection.

Another interrogatory might ask:

State the facts supporting your contention that the plaintiff breached the agreement.

That type of question is sometimes called a contention interrogatory because it asks the opposing party to identify the factual basis for a claim or defense.

Interrogatories are therefore not merely requests for documents. They require the responding party to provide information in written form.

---

Rule 33 and the Federal Discovery System

Rule 33 operates within the broader federal discovery framework.

The scope of an interrogatory is tied to Rule 26(b).

This means that an interrogatory is not automatically proper merely because it is phrased as a question.

It generally must concern information that falls within the permissible scope of discovery.

The interrogatory must therefore be evaluated for:

• relevance;
• privilege;
• proportionality;
• burden;
• clarity;
• permissible subject matter;
• applicable numerical limits.

The broader principle is important:

Rule 33 tells parties how interrogatories work; Rule 26 helps determine what they may properly ask.

---

Who Can Serve Interrogatories?

Federal Rule 33 permits a party to serve interrogatories on any other party.

This includes, depending on the litigation:

• plaintiffs;
• defendants;
• counterclaimants;
• counterclaim defendants;
• crossclaimants;
• crossclaim defendants;
• third-party plaintiffs;
• third-party defendants.

Interrogatories are therefore a party-directed discovery device.

They are not normally used to obtain written answers from a person who is not a party to the litigation.

When information is sought from a nonparty, other discovery mechanisms—particularly subpoenas—may be appropriate.

---

Interrogatories Are Different From Depositions

Interrogatories and depositions both involve questions, but they operate very differently.

An interrogatory is written.

A deposition is ordinarily an oral examination under oath.

With interrogatories:

• the questions are served in writing;
• the responding party prepares written answers;
• objections are stated in writing;
• there is no live questioning;
• there is generally no immediate follow-up question.

With a deposition:

• the witness appears before counsel;
• questions are asked orally;
• the attorney can immediately follow up;
• the witness answers in real time;
• the testimony is recorded.

Interrogatories are therefore particularly useful for obtaining information that can be provided in a structured written form.

Depositions are often better suited to exploring testimony dynamically and investigating complicated factual issues.

---

The 25-Interrogatory Limit

One of the most important features of federal interrogatory practice is the presumptive numerical limit.

Under Rule 33(a)(1), a party may generally serve no more than 25 written interrogatories on any other party, including all discrete subparts, unless the parties stipulate otherwise or the court permits additional interrogatories.

This limitation is important because interrogatories can otherwise become excessively burdensome.

The rule does not mean that every case is permanently limited to exactly 25 questions.

A court may permit additional interrogatories when appropriate.

The parties may also stipulate to a different number.

The Federal Rules therefore establish a presumptive limit while preserving flexibility for cases that genuinely require additional written discovery.

---

What Counts as a Separate Interrogatory?

The 25-interrogatory limit includes discrete subparts.

This prevents a party from evading the numerical limit simply by placing numerous independent questions under a single numbered paragraph.

For example, a request such as:

Identify every person involved in the transaction, state when each person became involved, describe everything each person did, identify every communication each person had, and explain what each person knew.

may raise questions about whether the various components are actually separate interrogatories.

The analysis can depend on whether the subparts are logically related or instead seek information about distinct subjects.

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 33 recognize that not every series of related inquiries necessarily constitutes multiple interrogatories.

For example, an interrogatory concerning communications of a particular type may remain a single interrogatory even if it asks for the time, place, participants, and contents of those communications.

The important principle is that parties cannot manipulate the numbering system to evade the numerical limit.

---

Why Does the Rule Limit Interrogatories?

The numerical limit reflects concerns about:

• excessive discovery;
• litigation expense;
• harassment;
• delay;
• repetitive requests;
• unnecessary court intervention.

Interrogatories can be relatively inexpensive compared with depositions, but that does not mean they are cost-free.

Each interrogatory may require the responding party to:

• investigate;
• locate records;
• consult employees;
• communicate with counsel;
• gather information from multiple sources;
• prepare a legally sufficient answer.

In complex litigation, even a seemingly simple question can require extensive investigation.

The numerical limit therefore provides a presumptive mechanism for controlling the volume of written questioning.

---

The Scope of an Interrogatory

Rule 33(a)(2) provides that an interrogatory may relate to any matter that can be inquired into under Rule 26(b).

This ties interrogatories directly to the broader scope of discovery.

An interrogatory can therefore seek information concerning:

• factual allegations;
• witnesses;
• documents;
• transactions;
• damages;
• defenses;
• relevant communications;
• factual contentions;
• other discoverable matters.

But the interrogatory remains subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26.

A question that is irrelevant, privileged, or disproportionate may be challenged even though it is technically written as an interrogatory.

---

Interrogatories About Facts

The most straightforward interrogatories ask for factual information.

For example:

Identify each person who was present at the meeting on June 12, 2026.

Or:

State the date on which you first became aware of the alleged defect.

Or:

Identify each written communication between you and the defendant concerning the agreement.

These questions seek information about events, people, documents, and circumstances.

Factual interrogatories are among the most common forms of written discovery.

---

Interrogatories Seeking Identification of Documents

Interrogatories can also ask a party to identify documents or other evidence.

For example:

Identify all documents that you contend support your allegation that the defendant breached the agreement.

The requesting party may then use that information to formulate more specific requests for production.

This illustrates an important relationship between discovery devices.

One discovery mechanism can inform the use of another.

An interrogatory may identify a document.

A request for production may then seek the document itself.

A deposition may later explore the witness who created or received the document.

Discovery therefore operates as an interconnected system rather than a collection of completely isolated procedures.

---

Interrogatories Seeking Identification of Witnesses

Interrogatories are also frequently used to identify witnesses.

A party may ask:

Identify each person known to you who has information concerning the events alleged in the complaint.

The answer can provide:

• names;
• addresses or contact information when required;
• descriptions of relevant knowledge;
• relationships to the parties;
• other identifying information.

Some information concerning potential witnesses may already be subject to mandatory initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1).

Nevertheless, interrogatories may still be useful for obtaining additional information within the permissible discovery scope.

---

Contention Interrogatories

One of the most distinctive features of Rule 33 is that interrogatories may seek certain contentions.

A contention interrogatory asks the opposing party to explain the factual basis of a claim or defense.

For example:

Identify all facts supporting your contention that the defendant acted negligently.

Or:

Identify each fact upon which you rely to establish that the contract was terminated on June 1.

These questions can force a party to clarify its position.

They can also help narrow the issues before trial.

---

Opinions and Applications of Law to Fact

Rule 33 expressly provides that an interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact.

This is an important distinction.

A party may be asked to explain how the facts support its legal position.

For example:

Identify the facts upon which you contend that the defendant’s conduct constituted a breach of the agreement.

That question involves both factual contentions and the application of law to those facts.

The rule does not automatically make such a question improper.

---

Pure Questions of Law

The distinction becomes more difficult when an interrogatory seeks a purely legal conclusion unrelated to the facts.

For example:

State every legal principle that you believe governs federal contract law.

Such a question is fundamentally different from:

Identify the facts upon which you contend that the defendant breached the contract.

The first asks for a broad statement of law.

The second asks the party to connect its factual contentions to the legal dispute.

The Federal Rules permit factual and law-to-fact contention interrogatories but do not transform interrogatories into unlimited requests for legal research memoranda.

---

Timing of Contention Interrogatories

Contention interrogatories can sometimes be more useful later in discovery than at the beginning.

Early in a lawsuit, a party may not yet have access to all relevant documents, witnesses, or information.

A court may therefore permit or require a party to defer answering certain contention interrogatories until other discovery has been completed.

Rule 33(a)(2) expressly recognizes that a court may order that an interrogatory need not be answered until:

• designated discovery is complete;
• a pretrial conference occurs; or
• another appropriate time arrives.

This allows the court to prevent premature disputes over factual contentions.

---

Why Contention Interrogatories Matter

Contention interrogatories can force a party to identify what it actually intends to prove.

Suppose a defendant asserts several affirmative defenses but provides little explanation.

The plaintiff may use interrogatories to ask:

Identify the facts supporting each affirmative defense asserted in your answer.

The response may reveal:

• which defenses are genuinely being pursued;
• which witnesses matter;
• what documents may be relevant;
• which factual disputes remain;
• whether a defense has a meaningful factual basis.

This can significantly narrow litigation.

---

Interrogatories and Damages

Interrogatories can also be used to obtain information concerning damages.

A party might ask:

Identify each category of damages you seek in this action and state the amount claimed for each category.

Or:

Identify the factual basis for your claim for lost profits.

Damages interrogatories can help clarify the amount and nature of the relief being sought.

They may also reveal what documents or expert analysis will be needed to evaluate the claim.

---

Interrogatories and Affirmative Defenses

Interrogatories are particularly useful when a party asserts multiple affirmative defenses.

For example, in a contract action, a defendant might assert:

• illegality;
• waiver;
• estoppel;
• statute of limitations;
• failure of consideration;
• fraud;
• lack of contractual formation.

The opposing party may seek information concerning the factual basis of those defenses.

This can expose whether an asserted defense is supported by identifiable facts or merely included as a precautionary pleading.

---

Interrogatories and Corporate Parties

When the responding party is a corporation, partnership, association, or governmental agency, Rule 33 provides that the answers must be given by an appropriate officer or agent who must furnish the information available to the organization.

This is important because an organization obviously cannot personally answer a question.

The organization must gather the relevant information from appropriate sources.

The answer therefore represents the organization’s response, not merely the personal knowledge of one employee.

---

The Duty to Provide Information Available to the Party

A responding organization must generally make reasonable efforts to obtain the information available to it.

It cannot necessarily avoid answering simply because the individual receiving the interrogatories personally lacks knowledge.

For example, if a corporation is asked to identify the employees who participated in a particular transaction, the company cannot simply respond:

I do not personally know.

The organization must address the interrogatory through the information available to it, subject to the applicable rules and limitations.

---

Answers Must Be Separate and Full

Rule 33(b)(3) generally requires each interrogatory to be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, to the extent it is not objected to.

This requirement has several consequences.

A responding party should not ordinarily provide a vague general narrative when specific answers are required.

Nor should a party simply refuse to answer an entire interrogatory because one portion of it is objectionable.

The rules encourage complete responses to the portions that can properly be answered.

---

Partial Objections and Partial Answers

An interrogatory can contain multiple components.

If one portion is objectionable but another portion can be answered, the responding party may need to answer the proper portion rather than withholding everything.

For example, suppose an interrogatory asks for information concerning 100 transactions, but the request is disproportionate as to 90 of them while being proper as to 10.

A blanket refusal may be inappropriate.

The Federal Rules generally contemplate that a party should provide information that can properly be provided while specifically identifying the basis for withholding the remainder.

---

Answers Must Be Under Oath

Interrogatory answers are generally provided under oath.

This distinguishes interrogatories from ordinary informal correspondence.

The responding party is making formal representations within the litigation process.

A person answering on behalf of an organization likewise provides answers representing the organization.

Because the answers are formal discovery responses, accuracy matters.

---

Who Signs the Answers?

Rule 33(b)(5) requires the person who makes the answers to sign them.

The attorney who makes objections must sign the objections.

This creates accountability for both:

• the party providing information; and
• the lawyer asserting objections.

The signatures are not merely administrative formalities.

They reinforce the responsibility associated with discovery responses.

---

The Time to Respond

Under Rule 33(b)(2), the responding party generally has 30 days after being served with the interrogatories to serve answers and objections.

The parties may stipulate to a different period under Rule 29, and the court may order a different deadline.

The timing rules should also be considered together with the broader federal discovery schedule.

Local rules, scheduling orders, stipulations, and particular circumstances can affect when discovery responses are due.

Therefore, the 30-day period is the basic federal rule, not necessarily the deadline in every individual case.

---

Objections to Interrogatories

A responding party may object to an interrogatory when a valid legal or procedural basis exists.

Possible objections can include:

• lack of relevance;
• lack of proportionality;
• privilege;
• work-product protection;
• ambiguity;
• vagueness;
• overbreadth;
• undue burden;
• undue expense;
• exceeding the numerical limit;
• seeking information outside the permissible scope.

But objections must be legitimate and appropriately stated.

---

Objections Must Be Specific

Rule 33(b)(4) requires the grounds for an objection to be stated with specificity.

This means that a vague statement such as:

Objection. Improper.

generally does not adequately explain the problem.

A more meaningful objection identifies the actual basis, such as:

Objection. This interrogatory is disproportionate because it seeks information concerning every transaction conducted by the defendant over a twenty-year period, despite the complaint concerning only a single transaction.

The responding party should explain the reason for the objection sufficiently to allow the opposing party and, if necessary, the court to evaluate it.

---

Waiver of Objections

Rule 33(b)(4) also provides an important procedural consequence:

A ground for objection that is not timely stated is generally waived, unless the court excuses the failure for good cause.

This makes timely discovery responses important.

A party should not ordinarily wait until a later stage of litigation to raise an objection that should have been asserted in the original response.

Waiver questions can become complicated, particularly where privilege or other protections are involved, but the basic rule emphasizes the importance of timely and specific objections.

---

Boilerplate Objections

A recurring problem in discovery practice is the use of boilerplate objections.

A boilerplate objection is a generic objection that does not meaningfully explain why the particular interrogatory is improper.

Examples include:

Objection: vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and not proportional.

Such a list may provide little useful information if it is not tied to the actual request.

Discovery rules generally require specificity.

An objection should help the opposing party understand what is wrong with the interrogatory and what portion of the request is being withheld.

---

An Objection Does Not Necessarily End the Matter

If a party objects to an interrogatory, the requesting party can evaluate the objection and attempt to resolve the dispute.

If the disagreement remains, the requesting party may seek judicial relief under Rule 37.

A court can determine whether the objection is valid and whether the responding party must provide a further answer.

Thus, an objection is not necessarily the final word.

---

Motions to Compel Answers

When a responding party provides an inadequate answer or improperly refuses to answer, the requesting party may seek an order compelling a response.

A motion to compel may be appropriate when:

• an answer is incomplete;
• an answer is evasive;
• an objection is unsupported;
• information is improperly withheld;
• a party refuses to answer;
• the response fails to comply with Rule 33.

The court can then determine the proper scope of the response.

Discovery disputes may also involve attorney-fee consequences under Rule 37, depending on the circumstances.

---

Interrogatories and Privilege

A party may refuse to provide information protected by a valid privilege.

For example, an interrogatory might ask:

Identify the communications between you and your attorney concerning the legal strategy in this case.

The information may be protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, depending on the circumstances.

The responding party should generally identify the basis for withholding the information rather than simply ignoring the interrogatory.

Rule 26(b)(5) contains additional requirements concerning claims of privilege or work-product protection.

---

Interrogatories and Work Product

An interrogatory can also raise work-product concerns.

For example, a party may seek:

Identify every factual theory developed by your attorney concerning how the plaintiff’s case should be defeated.

That request may improperly seek protected attorney work product rather than ordinary discoverable facts.

By contrast, a question asking:

Identify the facts supporting your contention that the plaintiff suffered no compensable injury.

may be a proper contention interrogatory.

The distinction between discovering the facts and discovering the attorney’s mental impressions and litigation strategy is critical.

---

Interrogatories and Business Records

Rule 33(d) provides an important alternative for certain interrogatories involving business records.

If the answer can be determined by examining, auditing, compiling, abstracting, or summarizing the responding party’s business records—including electronically stored information—and the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for either party, the responding party may elect to allow the requesting party to examine the records instead of providing a traditional narrative answer.

But the responding party cannot simply dump a huge collection of records on the requesting party.

The responding party must:

1. specify the records that must be reviewed with sufficient detail to identify them; and
2. provide a reasonable opportunity to examine and use the records.

The requesting party must be able to derive the answer from the records substantially as readily as the responding party.

---

The Business-Records Option Is Not a Data Dump

Suppose an interrogatory asks:

State the total amount paid to each contractor during the relevant period.

A company may possess thousands of financial records.

It may sometimes invoke Rule 33(d) rather than manually calculate the answer.

But it cannot simply say:

See all company records.

That would defeat the purpose of the rule.

The responding party must identify the records sufficiently for the requesting party to locate and analyze them.

The rule is intended to distribute the burden fairly, not to transfer an impossible research project to the opposing party.

---

Interrogatories and Electronically Stored Information

Rule 33(d) expressly recognizes electronically stored information.

A responding party may, in appropriate circumstances, identify electronic records from which the requested answer can be derived.

But the same basic fairness principle applies.

The requesting party must have a reasonable opportunity to examine the information and derive the answer.

If technical assistance is necessary to make the records usable, the circumstances may require additional measures.

The mere fact that information exists electronically does not automatically make a Rule 33(d) response adequate.

---

Interrogatories and Documents

Interrogatories and requests for production often work together.

Consider a dispute involving a commercial agreement.

An interrogatory might ask:

Identify each document that you contend demonstrates that the agreement was terminated.

A request for production might then seek:

Produce each document identified in response to Interrogatory No. 5.

The interrogatory identifies the evidence.

The production request obtains the evidence.

This combination can make discovery more efficient.

---

Interrogatories and Depositions

Interrogatories can also help prepare for depositions.

A party may first ask an opposing party to identify:

• witnesses;
• transactions;
• documents;
• factual contentions;
• damages;
• relevant events.

The answers can then provide a roadmap for deposition questioning.

Conversely, information learned during a deposition may reveal the need for additional interrogatories, subject to the applicable discovery limits and scheduling order.

The discovery devices therefore frequently overlap strategically even though they operate procedurally differently.

---

Interrogatories and Requests for Admission

Requests for admission have a different principal purpose.

An interrogatory generally asks the opposing party to provide information.

A request for admission asks the party to admit or deny a proposition.

For example:

Interrogatory:

Identify the date on which you contend the contract was terminated.

Request for Admission:

Admit that the contract was terminated on June 1, 2026.

The interrogatory seeks information.

The admission request seeks to establish whether a particular proposition is accepted or disputed.

Both can be used together to narrow the issues.

---

Interrogatories in Complex Litigation

Complex cases can make interrogatories especially valuable.

A large commercial lawsuit may involve:

• numerous transactions;
• many witnesses;
• multiple corporate entities;
• complicated financial arrangements;
• extensive electronic records.

Interrogatories can help impose structure on the factual investigation.

They can require a party to identify:

• the transactions at issue;
• relevant employees;
• categories of damages;
• factual bases for defenses;
• important documents;
• disputed factual propositions.

Because Rule 33 contains a presumptive numerical limit, however, complex litigation may require careful drafting and, where justified, additional interrogatories authorized by stipulation or court order.

---

Interrogatories in Multi-Party Litigation

The numerical limit applies to interrogatories served on a particular party.

Multi-party litigation can therefore create complicated discovery-management issues.

For example, if several plaintiffs each serve interrogatories on the same defendant, the defendant may face a substantially greater discovery burden than in a two-party case.

Courts may address such problems through:

• coordinated discovery;
• stipulated limits;
• scheduling orders;
• additional restrictions;
• consolidated interrogatories;
• other case-management mechanisms.

The court’s objective is to prevent the aggregate discovery burden from becoming disproportionate.

---

Interrogatories and Discovery Strategy

The strongest interrogatories are usually purposeful.

Before drafting one, counsel should ask:

What do I need to learn?

Then:

Why does that information matter?

And finally:

Is an interrogatory the best discovery device for obtaining it?

Some information is easier to obtain through documents.

Some information is better explored in a deposition.

Some facts are better established through requests for admission.

Interrogatories are most effective when used for information that another party can reasonably provide in a structured written answer.

---

Drafting Effective Interrogatories

A well-drafted interrogatory should generally be:

• clear;
• specific;
• relevant;
• proportional;
• reasonably focused;
• capable of being answered;
• connected to the issues in dispute.

Avoid unnecessary complexity.

For example, instead of asking:

Please provide all information concerning anything that happened in connection with the entire business relationship between the parties.

a more focused interrogatory might ask:

Identify each communication between the parties concerning the alleged breach of the agreement between January 1 and March 31, 2026.

The second question is easier to understand, answer, and defend against an objection.

---

Definitions and Instructions

Interrogatories sometimes include definitions.

For example, a set of interrogatories may define:

• “Agreement”;
• “Defendant”;
• “Communication”;
• “Document”;
• “Relevant Period.”

Definitions can make a discovery request more precise.

But excessive or artificial definitions can create ambiguity rather than eliminate it.

A definition should clarify the scope of the request rather than quietly expand it beyond reasonable limits.

---

The Importance of Time Periods

Time limits are often important in interrogatories.

A request asking for information concerning an entire business’s activities over twenty years may be substantially broader than one covering the period surrounding the disputed transaction.

A carefully selected time period can improve:

• relevance;
• proportionality;
• efficiency;
• clarity.

This does not mean that a short time period is always appropriate.

Some claims require information extending years before or after the central event.

The period should be connected to the legal and factual issues in the case.

---

The Importance of Defined Subjects

Similarly, interrogatories should identify the subject matter with reasonable precision.

For example:

Identify every communication concerning the March 2026 termination of the agreement.

is more focused than:

Identify every communication concerning the parties’ business relationship.

The broader request may encompass thousands of irrelevant communications.

Precision reduces discovery disputes.

---

Responding to an Interrogatory

A proper response generally requires the responding party to determine:

1. what the interrogatory asks;
2. whether it is within the permissible scope;
3. whether any privilege applies;
4. whether an objection is justified;
5. what information is reasonably available;
6. whether the answer can be provided fully;
7. whether only part of the request is objectionable.

The party should then provide the required answer or an appropriately stated objection.

This is a substantive litigation task, not merely clerical work.

---

Complete Versus Evasive Answers

A response can technically contain words without actually answering the question.

For example:

Defendant denies the allegations and therefore cannot answer.

That may be inadequate if the interrogatory asks for factual information that the defendant can provide.

Similarly:

See the complaint.

may not be an adequate response to a question requiring specific factual information.

Discovery responses should address the question actually asked.

An evasive answer can become the subject of a motion to compel.

---

Interrogatories and “I Don’t Know”

A party is not necessarily required to know every fact immediately.

But an organization or individual generally cannot avoid discovery merely by failing to investigate reasonably available information.

Where the rules require a response based on information available to the party, the party may need to make reasonable inquiry.

A response stating that information is unknown should therefore be accurate and appropriate under the circumstances.

The precise obligations depend on the nature of the interrogatory and the governing rules.

---

Supplementing Interrogatory Answers

Discovery does not necessarily end when the original answers are served.

Rule 26(e) imposes duties to supplement or correct certain disclosures and discovery responses when the party learns that a response is materially incomplete or incorrect, subject to the rule’s requirements.

This is particularly important when:

• new witnesses are identified;
• facts change;
• additional documents are discovered;
• previous answers become materially inaccurate;
• damages calculations change;
• new information becomes available.

A party should not assume that an inaccurate answer remains acceptable merely because it was correct—or believed correct—when originally served.

---

Interrogatories and Trial

Interrogatory answers can sometimes be used at trial to the extent permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Rule 33(c) expressly provides that an answer to an interrogatory may be used to the extent allowed by the evidence rules.

This means interrogatory answers can have evidentiary significance.

But the precise use depends on the circumstances and applicable evidentiary rules.

Discovery responses should therefore be drafted carefully.

A party should not treat an interrogatory answer as an informal conversation that has no potential significance beyond discovery.

---

Interrogatories and Admissions

An interrogatory answer may sometimes clarify what a party admits or disputes.

But interrogatories should not be confused with requests for admission.

An answer to an interrogatory generally provides information.

An admission under Rule 36 has its own specific procedural consequences.

The distinction is important when determining what effect a particular discovery response may have later in litigation.

---

Common Problems With Interrogatories

Several problems frequently arise.

Overly Broad Questions

An interrogatory may attempt to cover an entire business, relationship, or lifetime of activity without sufficient connection to the claims.

Compound Questions

Multiple unrelated questions may be bundled together.

Ambiguous Terminology

Undefined terms can make the request difficult to answer.

Excessive Subparts

Multiple discrete subjects may be disguised as one numbered interrogatory.

Boilerplate Objections

The responding party may assert generic objections without explaining them.

Incomplete Answers

A party may provide only part of the information requested without adequate explanation.

Evasive Answers

A response may technically use words without addressing the actual question.

Premature Contention Questions

A party may demand detailed factual contentions before the opposing side has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery.

These problems can generate unnecessary discovery disputes.

---

Interrogatories and the Duty of Good Faith

Discovery practice requires professional judgment.

A party should not use interrogatories solely to create unnecessary work for the opponent.

Likewise, a responding party should not use objections simply to delay or avoid legitimate discovery.

The federal rules seek meaningful information exchange while protecting against abuse.

This is reflected not only in Rule 33 but also in Rule 26(g), which imposes certification obligations concerning discovery requests, responses, and objections.

---

Interrogatories and Proportionality

The proportionality principle discussed in the preceding article applies directly to interrogatories.

A question may be relevant but still disproportionate.

For example, an interrogatory asking a multinational corporation to identify every communication relating to a broad topic over several decades could require enormous investigative effort.

A narrower question may provide the necessary information without imposing unreasonable burden.

The numerical limit of 25 interrogatories also contributes to proportionality, but it does not replace Rule 26’s broader proportionality analysis.

A party can violate proportionality principles even while serving fewer than 25 interrogatories.

---

Interrogatories and Protective Orders

When interrogatories impose extraordinary burden, seek protected information, or otherwise threaten serious prejudice, the responding party may seek appropriate judicial protection.

Rule 26(c) provides mechanisms for protective orders.

The court may limit or modify discovery rather than simply choosing between complete compliance and complete refusal.

Possible solutions include:

• narrowing the questions;
• limiting the time period;
• restricting the subject matter;
• changing the deadline;
• protecting confidential information;
• limiting the number of interrogatories.

This flexible approach allows discovery to continue while controlling unreasonable burdens.

---

Interrogatories as a Tool for Narrowing Litigation

One of the greatest strengths of interrogatories is their ability to force clarity.

A complaint may contain broad allegations.

An answer may contain numerous defenses.

Interrogatories can require the parties to identify the factual foundation of those positions.

This may reveal that:

• some allegations are unsupported;
• some defenses are no longer being pursued;
• certain facts are undisputed;
• certain witnesses are central;
• certain documents are critical.

The result can be a narrower and more manageable lawsuit.

---

A Practical Example

Suppose a plaintiff sues a company alleging wrongful termination.

The complaint alleges that the company terminated the plaintiff because of discrimination.

The plaintiff might serve interrogatories asking the company to:

1. identify the individuals involved in the termination decision;
2. identify the reasons for the termination;
3. identify the documents supporting those reasons;
4. identify comparable employees considered for similar decisions;
5. identify factual bases for asserted defenses.

The answers can then guide document requests and depositions.

The company may respond with objections to some portions while providing information as to others.

The plaintiff may later challenge inadequate responses through a motion to compel.

The interrogatories therefore become part of a larger discovery strategy.

---

Another Example: Contract Litigation

Suppose a supplier sues a purchaser for nonpayment.

The purchaser alleges that the supplier failed to deliver conforming goods.

The supplier might serve interrogatories asking:

• Identify each shipment alleged to have been defective.
• Identify each person who inspected the goods.
• State the date each alleged defect was discovered.
• Identify each communication concerning the alleged defects.
• Identify the facts supporting the purchaser’s defense of nonconforming performance.

The answers can help establish the factual structure of the dispute.

The supplier can then seek documents and take depositions based on the information provided.

---

Interrogatories in the Larger Discovery System

Interrogatories are only one component of discovery.

A typical case may use several mechanisms together:

Initial disclosures identify basic witnesses and evidence.

Interrogatories obtain structured written information.

Requests for production obtain documents and ESI.

Requests for admission establish or narrow particular facts.

Depositions provide oral testimony under oath.

Expert discovery develops specialized opinions.

Each mechanism serves a different purpose.

Interrogatories are particularly valuable when the information sought can be efficiently organized into written answers.

---

Key Takeaways

• Interrogatories are written questions served by one party on another party during civil discovery.
• Federal Rule 33 is the principal federal rule governing interrogatories.
• Interrogatories are generally served on parties, not ordinary nonparty witnesses.
• Their scope is tied to the broader discovery limits of Rule 26.
• In federal court, the presumptive limit is 25 interrogatories per party, including discrete subparts, unless otherwise stipulated or ordered.
• A court may permit additional interrogatories when justified.
• Interrogatories can seek factual information, identification of documents and witnesses, damages information, and factual contentions.
• Contention interrogatories can ask a party to identify facts supporting a claim or defense.
• Questions involving the application of law to fact are not automatically objectionable.
• Pure questions of law are different from permissible factual or law-to-fact contention questions.
• Answers generally must be separate, complete, written, and under oath.
• Federal Rule 33 generally provides 30 days to answer or object, subject to stipulation or court order.
• Objections must be stated with specificity.
• Untimely objections may be waived unless the court excuses the failure for good cause.
• A responding party may sometimes use business records under Rule 33(d) instead of providing a narrative answer.
• The business-records option does not permit an indiscriminate data dump.
• Interrogatories can be used strategically with document requests, admissions, and depositions.
• Interrogatory answers can have evidentiary significance subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
• Discovery responses may need to be supplemented when required by Rule 26(e).
• Improper or inadequate responses can lead to motions to compel and potentially sanctions.
• Interrogatories are most effective when they are focused, clear, relevant, and proportional.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What are interrogatories in civil procedure?

Interrogatories are written questions that one party serves on another party during discovery. The responding party generally must answer them in writing and under oath, subject to valid objections.

How many interrogatories are allowed in federal court?

Rule 33 generally permits no more than 25 interrogatories, including discrete subparts, to be served on another party unless the parties stipulate otherwise or the court permits additional interrogatories.

Do interrogatories have to be answered under oath?

Yes. Rule 33 generally requires answers to be made separately and fully in writing under oath.

How long does a party have to answer interrogatories?

Under the basic federal rule, the responding party generally has 30 days after service to serve answers and objections, unless a different period is established by stipulation or court order.

Can interrogatories ask for opinions?

Yes. An interrogatory is not automatically objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention relating to facts or the application of law to facts.

What is a contention interrogatory?

A contention interrogatory asks a party to identify the factual basis for a claim, defense, or other position asserted in the litigation.

Can interrogatories ask purely legal questions?

The rules distinguish between questions involving the application of law to facts and questions seeking purely legal propositions. Interrogatories are principally a discovery mechanism for obtaining information about the dispute, not a substitute for legal research.

Can a party object to an interrogatory?

Yes. A party may assert legitimate objections such as privilege, irrelevance, lack of proportionality, undue burden, ambiguity, or other applicable grounds. Objections generally must be stated specifically.

What happens if a party refuses to answer interrogatories?

The requesting party may seek an order compelling an answer under Rule 37. Depending on the circumstances, the court may also consider sanctions.

Can interrogatories be served on a nonparty?

Ordinary Rule 33 interrogatories are directed to parties. Discovery from nonparties is generally obtained through other mechanisms, including subpoenas.

Can interrogatories ask for documents?

They can ask a party to identify documents or information about documents. A formal request that the documents themselves be produced is generally made under Rule 34.

Can a party answer an interrogatory by referring to business records?

Sometimes. Rule 33(d) permits a responding party, under specified conditions, to identify business records—including electronically stored information—from which the answer can be derived.

Can interrogatory answers be used at trial?

They may be used to the extent permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence and other applicable law.

Can interrogatory answers be changed later?

They may need to be supplemented or corrected when required by Rule 26(e). The exact circumstances depend on whether the original response has become materially incomplete or incorrect.

---

Conclusion

Interrogatories provide one of the most structured forms of civil discovery.

Instead of requiring a witness to appear for oral questioning, they require a party to confront written questions and provide formal answers under oath. This makes interrogatories particularly useful for obtaining organized factual information, identifying witnesses and documents, clarifying damages, and requiring parties to articulate the factual foundations of their claims and defenses.

At the same time, interrogatories are not unlimited.

Rule 33 operates within the broader framework of Rule 26. Relevance, privilege, proportionality, numerical limits, burden, and other procedural safeguards constrain their use. The federal system therefore seeks to make interrogatories sufficiently powerful to reveal important information without allowing them to become a mechanism for harassment or excessive litigation expense.

Their greatest value often lies not in the sheer amount of information they produce, but in the structure and clarity they impose on a case.

A carefully drafted interrogatory can identify the witnesses who matter, reveal the documents that need to be produced, expose the factual basis of a defense, clarify a damages claim, or demonstrate that an apparently complicated dispute is actually much narrower than the pleadings suggest.

In this sense, interrogatories perform a central function within discovery: they turn broad allegations and defenses into specific questions that the opposing party must answer.

And because those answers are formal discovery responses, they can become an important part of the factual record on which the remainder of the litigation is built.