How many interrogatories in federal court

In federal civil litigation, interrogatories are written questions that must be answered in writing under oath. A party to a lawsuit uses interrogatories to obtain information in discovery from another party to the lawsuit. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 governs interrogatories in federal civil court.

This Toolkit offers resources for use in federal civil litigation that provide guidance on how to:. Leave of court, which is not routinely given absent stipulation, is required to serve more than 25 interrogatories cumulatively. Interrogatories should be brief, simple, particularized, unambiguous, and capable of being understood by jurors when read in conjunction with the answer.

They should not be argumentative nor should they impose unreasonable burdens on the responding party. If the information sought exists in the form of compilations, abstracts or summaries then available to the responding party, those should be made available to the interrogating party.

The final sentence is added to make it clear that a responding party has the duty to specify, by category and location, the records from which answers to interrogatories can be derived.

Purpose of Revision. The purpose of this revision is to reduce the frequency and increase the efficiency of interrogatory practice.

The revision is based on experience with local rules. For ease of reference, subdivision a is divided into two subdivisions and the remaining subdivisions renumbered. Revision of this subdivision limits interrogatory practice. Because Rule 26 a 1 — 3 requires disclosure of much of the information previously obtained by this form of discovery, there should be less occasion to use it.

Experience in over half of the district courts has confirmed that limitations on the number of interrogatories are useful and manageable. Moreover, because the device can be costly and may be used as a means of harassment, it is desirable to subject its use to the control of the court consistent with the principles stated in Rule 26 b 2 , particularly in multi-party cases where it has not been unusual for the same interrogatory to be propounded to a party by more than one of its adversaries.

Each party is allowed to serve 25 interrogatories upon any other party, but must secure leave of court or a stipulation from the opposing party to serve a larger number. However, a question asking about communications of a particular type should be treated as a single interrogatory even though it requests that the time, place, persons present, and contents be stated separately for each such communication.

As with the number of depositions authorized by Rule 30, leave to serve additional interrogatories is to be allowed when consistent with Rule 26 b 2. The aim is not to prevent needed discovery, but to provide judicial scrutiny before parties make potentially excessive use of this discovery device. In many cases it will be appropriate for the court to permit a larger number of interrogatories in the scheduling order entered under Rule 16 b.

Unless leave of court is obtained, interrogatories may not be served prior to the meeting of the parties under Rule 26 f. When a case with outstanding interrogatories exceeding the number permitted by this rule is removed to federal court, the interrogating party must seek leave allowing the additional interrogatories, specify which twenty-five are to be answered, or resubmit interrogatories that comply with the rule. See Rule 81 c , providing that these rules govern procedures after removal.

A separate subdivision is made of the former second paragraph of subdivision a. Language is added to paragraph 1 of this subdivision to emphasize the duty of the responding party to provide full answers to the extent not objectionable.

If, for example, an interrogatory seeking information about numerous facilities or products is deemed objectionable, but an interrogatory seeking information about a lesser number of facilities or products would not have been objectionable, the interrogatory should be answered with respect to the latter even though an objection is raised as to the balance of the facilities or products.

Similarly, the fact that additional time may be needed to respond to some questions or to some aspects of questions should not justify a delay in responding to those questions or other aspects of questions that can be answered within the prescribed time. Paragraph 4 is added to make clear that objections must be specifically justified, and that unstated or untimely grounds for objection ordinarily are waived.

Note also the provisions of revised Rule 26 b 5 , which require a responding party to indicate when it is withholding information under a claim of privilege or as trial preparation materials. These provisions should be read in light of Rule 26 g , authorizing the court to impose sanctions on a party and attorney making an unfounded objection to an interrogatory. Subdivisions c and d. The provisions of former subdivisions b and c are renumbered.

Rule 33 d is amended to parallel Rule 34 a by recognizing the importance of electronically stored information. Much business information is stored only in electronic form; the Rule 33 d option should be available with respect to such records as well. Special difficulties may arise in using electronically stored information, either due to its form or because it is dependent on a particular computer system.

Rule 33 d allows a responding party to substitute access to documents or electronically stored information for an answer only if the burden of deriving the answer will be substantially the same for either party. Depending on the circumstances, satisfying these provisions with regard to electronically stored information may require the responding party to provide some combination of technical support, information on application software, or other assistance.

The key question is whether such support enables the interrogating party to derive or ascertain the answer from the electronically stored information as readily as the responding party. A party that wishes to invoke Rule 33 d by specifying electronically stored information may be required to provide direct access to its electronic information system, but only if that is necessary to afford the requesting party an adequate opportunity to derive or ascertain the answer to the interrogatory.

In that situation, the responding party's need to protect sensitive interests of confidentiality or privacy may mean that it must derive or ascertain and provide the answer itself rather than invoke Rule 33 d. Changes Made after Publication and Comment. No changes are made to the rule text. The Committee Note is changed to reflect the sensitivities that limit direct access by a requesting party to a responding party's information system.

If direct access to the responding party's system is the only way to enable a requesting party to locate and identify the records from which the answer may be ascertained, the responding party may choose to derive or ascertain the answer itself.

The language of Rule 33 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. The final sentence of former Rule 33 a was a redundant cross-reference to the discovery moratorium provisions of Rule 26 d.

Rule 26 d is now familiar, obviating any need to carry forward the redundant cross-reference. Former Rule 33 b 5 was a redundant reminder of Rule 37 a procedure and is omitted as no longer useful. This implication has been ignored in practice. Opinion and contention interrogatories are used routinely. Changes Made After Publication and Comment. See Note to Rule 1, supra. The Federal Rules of Evidence, referred to in subd. Rule 33 is amended in parallel with Rules 30 and 31 to reflect the recognition of proportionality in Rule 26 b 1.

Please help us improve our site! No thank you. Interrogatories to Parties. Rule The local rules also require parties to confer regarding the sequencing of deposition exhibits. The parties can stipulate to exceed this limitation or a party can seek leave of court.

See Rule 30 a 2 A. Again, if you believe you will need more than 10 depositions, this should be addressed at the Rule 26 f conference and with the district judge at the initial scheduling conference. Similar to state practice Code Civ. Notice or Subpoena Directed to an Organization. In its notice or subpoena, a party may name as the deponent a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency, or other entity and must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination.

The named organization must then designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf ; and it may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify. A subpoena must advise a nonparty organization of its duty to make this designation. The persons designated must testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization.

This paragraph 6 does not preclude a deposition by any other procedure allowed by these rules. Rule 26 a 2 governs the disclosure of expert identities and opinions. All witnesses who will be providing expert testimony must be identified in the disclosure. The written report must contain:.

In , this Rule was amended to provide that drafts of expert reports are protected attorney-client work product. See Rule 26 b 4 B. As to experts who do not have to provide a written report, you still must disclose their subject matter of testimony and a summary of facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.

The expert disclosure deadline is usually set in the Scheduling Order but if not, 90 days before the trial date. Rule 37 governs motions to compel and sanctions for all discovery matters. Unlike state court requirements which have time limits in which a motion to compel must be filed, the federal Rules do not specify a deadline. District courts also have local rules requiring a good faith meet and confer effort prior to filing any motion.