Interrogatories in Federal Court: What Rule 33 Actually Requires

Why Interrogatories Still Matter (Even When Nobody Likes Them)?

Ask any litigator about interrogatories and you’ll probably get an eye roll. They’re tedious to draft, annoying to answer, and half the time you get back responses so hedged and qualified they’re practically useless. And yet here we are, still using them. Still relying on them. Still fighting over them in discovery disputes that eat up billable hours like nothing else.

FRCP Rule 33 governs this whole messy process. It’s been around since 1938, tweaked and amended over decades, and it remains one of the most commonly used discovery tools in federal practice. Not because it’s elegant. Because it’s cheap. You don’t need to fly across the country for a deposition. You don’t need a court reporter. You just need a word processor and some patience.

The thing is, most lawyers learn Rule 33 by osmosis picking up habits from senior associates, copying templates, hoping for the best. That works until it doesn’t. Until you’re in front of a judge explaining why your “discrete subparts” aren’t really discrete, or why your boilerplate objections shouldn’t result in waiver.

This guide breaks down what you actually need to know.

[Insert picture of a sample interrogatory document here]

The Full Text: What Rule 33 Actually Says

I’m not going to paraphrase the rule and pretend that’s helpful. Here’s the actual language, current as of December 1, 2015 (no substantive changes since):

(a) In General

(1) Number. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).

(2) Scope. An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b). 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, but the court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.

(b) Answers and Objections

(1) Responding Party. The interrogatories must be answered:

• (A) by the party to whom they are directed; or
• (B) if that party is a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency, by any officer or agent, who must furnish the information available to the party.

(2) Time to Respond. 30 days after service. Can be modified by stipulation under Rule 29 or court order.

(3) Answering Each Interrogatory. Separately. Fully. In writing. Under oath.

(4) Objections. Must state grounds with specificity. Anything you don’t raise? Waived. Unless the court excuses it for good cause and courts aren’t in the habit of being generous here.

(5) Signature. The person answering signs the answers. The attorney signs objections.

(c) Use

Answers can be used as evidence to the extent the Federal Rules of Evidence allow.

(d) Option to Produce Business Records

If the answer lives in your business records including ESI and the burden of finding it would be roughly the same for both parties, you can point them to the records instead of synthesizing an answer. But you have to be specific enough that they can actually find it.

The full text is available on the U.S. Courts website.

How We Got Here: The Amendment History

Rule 33 didn’t spring fully formed from the 1938 drafters’ heads. It evolved. Sometimes in response to litigation abuse. Sometimes because technology changed. Sometimes because lawyers found creative ways to weaponize discovery that nobody anticipated.

Year	What Changed	Why It Mattered
1937	Original rule adopted, based on old Equity Rule 58	Created the basic framework written questions for discovery of facts, documents, admissions
1946	Added timing provisions, clarified scope, allowed broader inquiry	Addressed fights over when interrogatories could be served and what they could cover
1970	Response time extended to 30 days; objections required notice of hearing	Cut down on gamesmanship and delay tactics
1980	Contention interrogatories explicitly permitted	Settled the debate over whether you could ask for opinions on law applied to fact
1993	25-interrogatory limit imposed	The big one. Ended the era of 200-question interrogatory sets designed to bury opponents
2006	“Electronically stored information” added to business records option	E-discovery arrived; Rule 33 had to catch up
2007	Stylistic cleanup	No substance, just clearer language
2015	Proportionality incorporated from Rule 26(b)(1)	Getting extra interrogatories now requires showing they’re worth the burden

The 1993 amendment deserves special attention. Before that limit, interrogatory abuse was rampant. Parties would serve hundreds of questions, many redundant or marginally relevant, just to create work for the other side. The advisory committee notes from that year are blunt about it they wanted to “curb the overuse” that had become standard practice.

Key Provisions: The Stuff That Actually Trips People Up

The 25-Interrogatory Limit

Sounds straightforward. It’s not.

The limit is per party, not per side. So in a multi-defendant case, each defendant can serve 25 on the plaintiff. That adds up fast.

But here’s where it gets contentious: subparts. The rule says “including all discrete subparts,” which courts have interpreted to mean that if you ask “State the date, time, location, and participants of the meeting,” you’ve just burned four interrogatories, not one. The test most courts use? Whether the subparts seek information about separate subjects. Kendall v. GES Exposition Services (D. Nev. 1997) is the go-to cite.

Some lawyers try to sneak around this with compound questions disguised as single inquiries. Judges aren’t stupid. They’ve seen every trick.

Contention Interrogatories

These ask for a party’s position on legal or factual issues. “Do you contend that defendant breached the contract? If so, state all facts supporting that contention.”

They’re allowed explicitly since 1980. But timing matters. Courts can defer answers until discovery is further along. In re Convergent Technologies Securities Litigation (N.D. Cal. 1985) established that contention interrogatories served too early can be postponed to prevent premature disclosure of case theories.

My take? Serve them toward the end of discovery. You’ll get better answers, and you’ll face fewer objections.

Objections and Waiver

This is where lawyers mess up most often.

The rule requires objections to be stated “with specificity.” That means “overly broad” by itself doesn’t cut it. You need to explain why it’s overly broad what burden it creates, what makes it disproportionate to the needs of the case.

Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants (9th Cir. 1992) hammered this home. Boilerplate objections are essentially no objections. And anything you don’t object to timely? Waived.

The Business Records Option

Rule 33(d) lets you dodge a direct answer by pointing to records where the information can be found. It’s useful when the answer would require compiling data from hundreds of documents. But you can’t just gesture vaguely at a warehouse of boxes.

The specification has to be precise enough that the opposing party can find the information “as readily as [you] could.” Brown v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama (W.D.N.C. 2014) made clear that vague references don’t satisfy the rule.

Notable Cases Worth Knowing

A few decisions come up repeatedly in Rule 33 disputes:

On subpart counting:

• Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Rawstron (C.D. Cal. 1998) — Court counted subparts separately when they addressed distinct topics.
• Kendall v. GES Exposition Services (D. Nev. 1997) — Established the “discrete” test that most courts follow.

On contention interrogatories:

• Fischer & Porter Co. v. Tolco, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 1992) — Allowed contention interrogatories but approved deferral until later in discovery.
• In re Convergent Technologies Securities Litigation (N.D. Cal. 1985) — The leading case on timing.

On objections:

• Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants (9th Cir. 1992) — Boilerplate = waiver.
• Cleminshaw v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (D. Del. 1957) — Early case establishing specificity requirement.

On business records:

• Hillyard Enterprises v. Warren Oil Co. (E.D.N.C. 2003) — Required detailed specification of where information could be found.

For deeper research, the Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute maintains excellent FRCP resources with advisory committee notes.

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

I’ve seen discovery blow up over interrogatories more times than I can count. Usually it’s avoidable.

Drafting mistakes:

• Questions so broad they’re unanswerable (“Describe all communications relating to the subject matter of this litigation”).
• Compound questions disguised as singles.
• Definitions sections longer than the interrogatories themselves.
• Contention interrogatories served on day one.

Response mistakes:

• Answering some parts while objecting to others without clearly separating them.
• “Subject to and without waiving objections…” boilerplate that says nothing.
• Failing to conduct a reasonable inquiry before answering.
• Not supplementing when new information surfaces (Rule 26(e) requires this).

What actually works:

Keep questions tight. Specific. If you need background, ask one question. If you need details about an event, ask another. Don’t bundle.

When responding, deal with each interrogatory individually. If you’re objecting, say exactly why. If you’re answering subject to objections, make clear what you’re actually providing.

Meet and confer before running to the court. Judges hate discovery motions that could have been resolved with a phone call. They’ll remember.

Recent Developments (2020–2024)

During this period, there was nothing dramatic that occurred to Rule 33 itself. The latest substantive change is the proportionality amendment in 2015.

But context matters. The discovery universe had become broader than it used to be, which has implications on the manner in which Rule 33 will be worked out:

• Remote practice after COVID normalized electronic service and responses in a manner that rendered even the interrogatories more cost-effective compared to depositions.
• FRE 702 was amended (to be effective December 2023) to increase expert testimony standards; this indirectly affects any attempt to obtain expert-related opinions through contention interrogatories.
• More complicated ESI also implies that the business records option under 33(d) is invoked more frequently- and the question is whether the specification is really sufficient or not.

The Federal Judicial Center tracks procedural developments and publishes useful practice guides.

Final Thoughts

Rule 33 isn’t glamorous. It will not carry a case on its own. However, when utilized correctly, interrogatories trap the facts at the onset, compel the opposing party to lock in and impeach them at trial. When misused, they end up wasting the time of everybody and frustrating judges.

The distinction normally boils down to discipline. Ask what you really need to know. You should object only when you have real grounds. Record details in sufficient detail so that no-one has to guess.

Twenty-five questions do not sound much. It’s enough if you’re precise.