Rule 33.Interrogatories to parties.

Last amended July 1, 2018 · Last verified July 1, 2026

In one sentenceRule 33 lets a party serve written interrogatories on another party, who must answer each one separately and under oath within a set time, subject to numeric limits tied to the case's discovery tier.

Full Text of Rule 33

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c) (d)

(a) Generally.

(1) Definition. Interrogatories are written questions served by a party on another party.

(2) Number. A party may serve on any other party interrogatories, subject to the numeric limits in Rule 26.2 (f) and the procedures in Rule 26.2 (g) and (h) for obtaining permission to exceed those limits. Each subpart of an interrogatory counts as one interrogatory, except that a uniform interrogatory and its subparts count as one interrogatory.

(3) Scope. An interrogatory may ask about any matter allowed under Rule 26(b). An interrogatory is not improper merely because it asks for an opinion. An interrogatory may ask for a party’s contention about facts or the application of law to facts, but the court may, on motion, order that such a contention interrogatory need not be answered until a later time.

(4) Uniform interrogatories. Rule 84, Forms 4, 5, and 6, contain uniform interrogatories that a party may use under this rule. A party may use a uniform interrogatory when it is appropriate to the legal or factual issues of the particular action, regardless of how the action or claims are designated. A party propounding a uniform interrogatory may do so by serving a notice that identifies the uniform interrogatory by form and number. A party may limit the scope of a uniform interrogatory—such as by requesting a response only as to particular persons, events, or issues—without converting it into a nonuniform interrogatory.

(b) Answers and objections.

(1) Time to respond. Unless the parties agree or the court orders otherwise, the responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories. Subject to compliance with Rule 26(f)(1) by the party serving discovery, a defendant may serve its answers and any objections within 60 days after service—or execution of a waiver of service—of the summons and complaint on that defendant.

(2) Answers under oath. Subject to Rule 33(b)(3), an answering party must answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath. In answering an interrogatory, a party— including a public or private entity—must furnish the information available to it. It must also reproduce the text of an interrogatory immediately above its answer to that interrogatory.

(3) Objections. 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. If a party states an objection, it must still answer the interrogatory to the extent that it is not objectionable.

(4) Signature. The party who answers the interrogatories must sign them under oath. If the answering party is a public or private entity, an authorized representative with knowledge of the information contained in the answers, obtained after reasonable inquiry, must sign them under oath. An attorney who objects to any interrogatories must sign the objections.

(d) Option to produce business records. 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 determining the answer will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party may answer by:

(1) specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could; and

(2) giving the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries.

End

Amendment History

Promulgated by R-16-0010, effective January 1, 2017; amended by R-17-0010, effective July 1, 2018.

Plain-English Summary

Interrogatories are written questions that one party serves on another and that the responding party must answer in writing, under oath, within the deadline the rule sets. How many interrogatories a side may serve is not left open-ended: Rule 26.2 assigns each case to a discovery tier, and that tier caps the number of interrogatories, with a procedure in Rule 26.2(g) and (h) for asking the court to allow more when the case needs it.

An interrogatory is not off-limits merely because it calls for an opinion or asks the responding party to apply the law to the facts, though the court can defer answers to that kind of contention interrogatory until later in the case. Objections must spell out their grounds with enough detail to let the requesting party and the court evaluate them, and an unstated objection is generally waived. Rule 84's uniform interrogatory forms give parties a ready-made, presumptively proper set of questions for common types of cases.

When the answer to an interrogatory can be found by digging through business records, and the burden of that search would fall equally on either side, Rule 33(d) lets the responding party point to the records instead of writing out a narrative answer, provided it identifies the records specifically enough that the requesting party can find them just as easily.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many interrogatories can a party serve?

The limit depends on the case's discovery tier under Rule 26.2, which sets a specific number for each tier. A party who needs more can seek the other side's agreement or ask the court for permission to exceed the limit.

Can a party object to an interrogatory instead of answering it?

Yes, but the objection has to state its grounds specifically, and any part of the interrogatory that is not objectionable still has to be answered.

Can a company answer interrogatories through business records instead of writing out answers?

When the answer can be worked out from the responding party's business records and the research burden would be about the same for either side, the responding party may identify the records in enough detail for the requesting party to locate them and let that party do the digging.

Source & verification. The rule text and History are reproduced verbatim from the official Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (Ariz. R. Civ. P. 33). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Arizona (Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 1, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: written interrogatoriesROGROGsinterrogatories to parties