Federal interrogatories: 25 including discrete subparts, and 30 days to answer

Rule 33 is short and does three things: it caps the number, sets the response period, and makes unstated objections disappear.

Twenty-five, including discrete subparts

FRCP 33(a)(1):

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).

Two features.

Per party, not per side. This is the opposite of Rule 30's ten-deposition cap, which is per side. Twenty-five run from each party to each other party.

"Including all discrete subparts." The phrase is doing real work. An interrogatory asking a party to identify each person with knowledge, state what each knows, and identify documents each reviewed is commonly counted as three. Whether a subpart is "discrete" turns on whether it is logically or factually subsumed within the primary question — a test developed in case law rather than in the rule.

Leave for more is tied to proportionality: "to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2)."

Contention interrogatories are permitted, but can be deferred

FRCP 33(a)(2): an interrogatory may relate to any matter within Rule 26(b)'s scope, and "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."

So the objection to a contention interrogatory served early is usually about timing, not about propriety.

Thirty days, answered under oath

FRCP 33(b)(2): the responding party must serve answers and any objections within 30 days after being served. A shorter or longer time may be stipulated under Rule 29 or ordered by the court.

FRCP 33(b)(1) — who answers: the party to whom they are directed, or, if that party is a corporation, partnership, association or governmental agency, "by any officer or agent, who must furnish the information available to the party."

That last clause matters. An entity cannot answer that the individual signing doesn't personally know; the obligation is to furnish information available to the party.

FRCP 33(b)(3): each interrogatory must, to the extent not objected to, be "answered separately and fully in writing under oath."

FRCP 33(b)(5) — signatures: "The person who makes the answers must sign them, and the attorney who objects must sign any objections." Two different signatures on the same document, with different functions.

Objections waive if not stated with specificity

FRCP 33(b)(4):

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.

Two failure modes, both fatal. Objecting late waives. Objecting on time but generically — "vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome" without more — risks the same result, because the ground was not stated with specificity.

The business-records option

FRCP 33(d) is the provision that makes large interrogatories manageable. If the answer 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 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.

Both conditions are real. The burdens must be substantially equal — pointing at a document dump the producing party can search and the requesting party cannot doesn't satisfy the rule — and the specification must be detailed enough to locate the records as readily as the responding party could.

Use at trial

FRCP 33(c): "An answer to an interrogatory may be used to the extent allowed by the Federal Rules of Evidence."

Interrogatory answers are the responding party's sworn statements, so they are generally usable against that party as admissions — but Rule 33(c) routes the question to the evidence rules rather than answering it.

What happens if you miss the 30 days

Federal practice does not have California's automatic waiver of all objections including privilege. What it has is Rule 33(b)(4)'s waiver of grounds not timely stated, plus Rule 37:

• Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(iii) — a party may move to compel an answer to an interrogatory;
• Rule 37(a)(4) — "an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond";
• Rule 37(a)(5) — fee shifting against whichever side was unreasonable, including where the answers arrive only after the motion was filed;
• Rule 37(b)(2) — the sanctions ladder, if an order issues and is disobeyed.

Supplementation doesn't stop

Rule 26(e)(1) requires a party who responded to an interrogatory to supplement or correct in a timely manner if it learns the response is materially incomplete or incorrect and the corrective information hasn't otherwise been made known during discovery or in writing.

Rule 37(c)(1) supplies the consequence: information not properly disclosed or supplemented may not be used on a motion, at a hearing, or at trial unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.

How the federal limits compare

California's automatic waiver on a late response is the harshest of the three, and it is covered in the guide on missing a California discovery deadline.

A short checklist

1. Count your subparts before serving — the cap includes them.
2. Calendar 30 days, and add three if service was by mail, by leaving with the clerk, or by other consented means under Rule 6(d).
3. State every objection with specificity — generic strings waive.
4. Get the right signatures: the answering person signs the answers, the attorney signs the objections.
5. If you use Rule 33(d), specify the records precisely enough that the other side can find the answer as easily as you could.
6. Stipulate under Rule 29 if you need more time or more interrogatories — it's cheaper than a motion.

Where these rules live

• Rule 26 — Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
• Rule 29 — Stipulations About Discovery Procedure
• Rule 33 — Interrogatories to Parties
• Rule 34 — Producing Documents and ESI
• Rule 36 — Requests for Admission
• Rule 37 — Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate

This page explains what the rules say. It isn't legal advice, and whether a subpart is "discrete" is decided under case law this site doesn't cover.