This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated.
If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 commencing with Section If the officer or agent signing the response on behalf of that party is an attorney acting in that capacity for the party, that party waives any lawyer-client privilege and any protection for work product under Chapter 4 commencing with Section At that time, both originals may be destroyed, unless the court on motion of any party and for good cause shown orders that the originals be preserved for a longer period.
California Code, Code of Civil Procedure - CCP § | FindLaw
If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:. The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 commencing with Section In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 commencing with Section At the trial of the action, the propounding party or any other party may use the initial answer under Section At the trial or any other hearing in the action, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, the propounding party or any party other than the responding party may use any answer or part of an answer to an interrogatory only against the responding party.
Back to top Writs of control and warrants — power to stay execution or grant other relief Back to top Writs and warrants — information about execution of the writ or warrant Back to top Writs of control and writs of delivery — description of parties Back to top Writs relating to ecclesiastical property Back to top Writs other than those conferring a power to use the TCG procedure — order for sale otherwise than by auction Back to top Enforcement in the High Court of a judgment or order for possession of land Back to top Enforcement in the High Court of a judgment or order for delivery of goods Back to top Warrant of control or warrant of delivery — execution of High Court judgment Back to top Warrants of control and warrants of delivery — description of parties Back to top Warrants of control — bankruptcy or winding up of debtor Back to top Warrants where the debtor is a farmer Back to top Warrants of delivery Back to top Warrants of delivery other than those conferring a power to use the TCG procedure — notice and inventory requirements Back to top Warrants of delivery conferring a power to use the TCG procedure — notice of enforcement and inventory requirements Back to top Warrants of possession Back to top Saving for enforcement by committal Back to top Suspension of part warrant Back to top Concurrent warrants Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.
The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure. The person who makes the answers must sign them, and the attorney who objects must sign any objections. An answer to an interrogatory may be used to the extent allowed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. If the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing, compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party's business records including electronically stored information , and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party may answer by:.
As amended Dec. July 1, ; Apr. This rule restates the substance of [former] Equity Rule 58 Discovery—Interrogatories—Inspection and Production of Documents—Admission of Execution or Genuineness , with modifications to conform to these rules. The added second sentence in the first paragraph of Rule 33 conforms with a similar change in Rule 26 a and will avoid litigation as to when the interrogatories may be served.
Original Rule 33 does not state the times at which parties may serve written interrogatories upon each other. It has been the accepted view, however, that the times were the same in Rule 33 as those stated in Rule 26 a. United States v. Great Lakes Transit Corp. Rules Serv. Alba Trading Co. The time within which leave of court must be secured by a plaintiff has been fixed at 10 days, in view of the fact that a defendant has 10 days within which to make objections in any case, which should give him ample time to engage counsel and prepare.
See also Note to Rule 13 a herein. The portion of the rule dealing with practice on objections has been revised so as to afford a clearer statement of the procedure. Under the original wording, answers to all interrogatories may be withheld until objections, sometimes to but a few interrogatories, are determined.
The amendment expedites the procedure of the rule and serves to eliminate the strike value of objections to minor interrogatories. The elimination of the last sentence of the original rule is in line with the policy stated subsequently in this note.
- The 7 Laws of Real Estate.
- Soak Up the Sun.
- Software for Process Servers.
- Adding Parties and Claims?
- California Code of Civil Procedure – Interrogatories.
The added second paragraph in Rule 33 contributes clarity and specificity as to the use and scope of interrogatories to the parties. The field of inquiry will be as broad as the scope of examination under Rule 26 b. There is no reason why interrogatories should be more limited than depositions, particularly when the former represent an inexpensive means of securing useful information.
See Hoffman v. Wilson Line, Inc. Technicolor, Inc.
Farrell Publishing Corp. Under present Rule 33 some courts have unnecessarily restricted the breadth of inquiry on various grounds. See Auer v.
Hershey Creamery Co. Leslie D.
See Knox v. Alter W.
California Code, Code of Civil Procedure - CCP § 527.6
Murphy W. Dixi-Cola Laboratories, Inc. Under amended Rule 33, the party interrogated is given the right to invoke such protective orders under Rule 30 b as are appropriate to the situation. At the same time, it is provided that the number of or number of sets of interrogatories to be served may not be limited arbitrarily or as a general policy to any particular number, but that a limit may be fixed only as justice requires to avoid annoyance, expense, embarrassment or oppression in individual cases.
The party interrogated, therefore, must show the necessity for limitation on that basis.
California Code, Code of Civil Procedure - CCP § 527.6
It will be noted that in accord with this change the last sentence of the present rule, restricting the sets of interrogatories to be served, has been stricken. Schoeneman, Inc. Brauer W. It makes no difference therefore, how many interrogatories are propounded. If the inquiries are pertinent the opposing party cannot complain. City of Niagara Falls W. By virtue of express language in the added second paragraph of Rule 33, as amended, any uncertainty as to the use of the answers to interrogatories is removed.
The omission of a provision on this score in the original rule has caused some difficulty. See, e. New England Mutual Life Ins. The second sentence of the second paragraph in Rule 33, as amended, concerns the situation where a party wishes to serve interrogatories on a party after having taken his deposition, or vice versa.
It has been held that an oral examination of a party, after the submission to him and answer of interrogatories, would be permitted. Howard v. State Marine Corp. Minder Construction Co. But objections have been sustained to interrogatories served after the oral deposition of a party had been taken. McNally v. Simons S. Currier S.
Rule 33, as amended, permits either interrogatories after a deposition or a deposition after interrogatories. It may be quite desirable or necessary to elicit additional information by the inexpensive method of interrogatories where a deposition has already been taken. The party to be interrogated, however, may seek a protective order from the court under Rule 30 b where the additional deposition or interrogation works a hardship or injustice on the party from whom it is sought.
Subdivision a. The mechanics of the operation of Rule 33 are substantially revised by the proposed amendment, with a view to reducing court intervention. There is general agreement that interrogatories spawn a greater percentage of objections and motions than any other discovery device.
The Columbia Survey shows that, although half of the litigants resorted to depositions and about one-third used interrogatories, about 65 percent of the objections were made with respect to interrogatories and 26 percent related to depositions. The procedures now provided in Rule 33 seem calculated to encourage objections and court motions. The time periods now allowed for responding to interrogatories—15 days for answers and 10 days for objections—are too short.
The Columbia Survey shows that tardy response to interrogatories is common, virtually expected.
The same was reported in Speck, supra , 60 Yale L. The time pressures tend to encourage objections as a means of gaining time to answer.
- California Rules of Court: Title Three Rules;
- BattleTech: Sniper?
- The Spanish Archives of New Mexico; (1914) Volume: 2;
- A Life on the Iron Road!
- Search California Codes?
- Table of Contents.
- Log In to...;
The time for objections is even shorter than for answers, and the party runs the risk that if he fails to object in time he may have waived his objections.