Simone Lawson
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a) limits the number of interrogatories a party may serve to 25, including all discrete subparts. This rule was amended in 2011 to make the rule clearer and more consistent with other rules. The amendment also added paragraph (a)(3), which limits the number of interrogatories and defines when a subpart of an interrogatory does not constitute a separate interrogatory. This means that parties cannot evade the limit by joining as subparts questions that seek information about separate subjects. However, a question about a particular type of communication is treated as a single interrogatory, even if it requests details for each instance.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Number of interrogatories allowed | 25 |
| Ability to serve more interrogatories | Requires leave of court or written stipulation |
| Definition of a subpart | A subpart of an interrogatory does not constitute a separate interrogatory |
| Treatment of questions about communications | Treated as a single interrogatory |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Number of interrogatories
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure places a limit on the number of interrogatories that can be served by each party in a civil suit. The rule states that a party may serve up to 25 interrogatories on any other party, including all discrete subparts. This limit is in place to prevent excessive use of interrogatories and facilitate efficient and equitable decision-making. However, parties can request leave of court or a stipulation from the opposing party to serve a larger number of interrogatories if needed.
The definition of a subpart in the context of Rule 33 interrogatories has been a subject of clarification through amendments to the rule. The amendments aim to prevent parties from evading the presumptive limitation of 25 interrogatories by joining as "subparts" questions that seek information about discrete separate subjects. For example, a question about communications of a particular type, requesting details such as time, place, persons present, and contents, should be treated as a single interrogatory.
The North Dakota Court System's Rule 33, amended in 2011, increased the limit to 50 interrogatories per party, including all discrete subparts. This amendment also included similar provisions regarding the treatment of subparts to prevent evasion of the limit. However, it is important to note that the specific rules and limits may vary across different jurisdictions.
The ability to serve additional interrogatories beyond the specified limit is granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2). This allowance aims to balance the need for discovery while providing judicial scrutiny to prevent excessive use. Parties must secure leave of court or a stipulation from the opposing party to serve a larger number of interrogatories, ensuring a controlled and fair process.
In summary, Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits the number of interrogatories to 25 per party, including any discrete subparts. The definition of a subpart has been clarified through amendments to prevent the evasion of this limit by joining questions on separate subjects. Courts may grant permission to serve additional interrogatories when consistent with specified rules and to meet the needs of discovery.
Hearing Attendance: Lawsuit Appearance?
You may want to see also
Definition of a subpart
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure places a limit on the number of interrogatories that a party can serve on any other party. This limit is set at 25 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.
A subpart refers to a part of an interrogatory that seeks information about separate and distinct subjects. For example, a question about a particular type of communication, such as the time, place, persons present, and contents of a conversation, would be considered a single interrogatory with multiple subparts.
Parties cannot circumvent the interrogatory limit by joining multiple questions as subparts. However, a question that seeks information about a single subject, even if it requests multiple pieces of information, is still considered a single interrogatory. For instance, an interrogatory about communications of a particular type should be treated as one, even if it requests details such as the time, place, individuals involved, and the content of the communication.
The rule aims to prevent parties from making excessive use of interrogatories while allowing for necessary discovery. It also ensures that parties receive responses to their interrogatories in a timely and efficient manner, promoting both justice and procedural efficiency.
The Unconstitutional Detroit Constitution: What Was Overturned?
You may want to see also
Evading limitations
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a) limits the number of interrogatories that a party can serve on another party to 25, including all discrete subparts. This rule aims to prevent parties from evading the limitation by joining questions with discrete separate subjects as subparts. However, a question about a specific type of communication is considered a single interrogatory, even if it requests details such as time, place, persons present, and content.
To evade the limitations imposed by Rule 33(a), parties may attempt to include multiple questions within a single interrogatory. This practice, known as "evasive compounding," involves combining multiple discrete questions into one complex interrogatory. While this tactic might allow parties to circumvent the numerical limit on interrogatories, it can also result in vague, ambiguous, or confusing questions that are difficult to answer.
Another strategy to circumvent the limitations is to use subparts strategically. Despite the rule's explicit prohibition against treating subparts as separate interrogatories, some parties may attempt to do so. They might argue that each subpart addresses a distinct aspect of the main question, effectively increasing the number of interrogatories beyond the prescribed limit. This approach, however, carries the risk of being challenged by opposing counsel or the court, which could result in sanctions or adverse rulings.
Additionally, parties might try to obtain leave from the court to serve additional interrogatories. Rule 33(a) allows for this possibility, but it is not a guaranteed workaround. The decision to grant leave rests with the court, which will consider factors such as the relevance of the information sought, the burden on the responding party, and the overall scope of discovery. Parties seeking to evade the limitations of Rule 33(a) through this method should be prepared to demonstrate good cause and a compelling need for the additional interrogatories.
Moreover, parties can explore alternative discovery methods to supplement their interrogatories. These could include requests for production of documents, depositions, or subpoenas. By leveraging these additional tools, parties can gather information beyond the confines of Rule 33(a). However, it is important to note that each discovery method has its own set of limitations and requirements, and parties must ensure they adhere to the applicable rules and ethical standards when employing these alternative strategies.
Thomas Jefferson's Vision for the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Communications
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a) allows each party to serve a maximum of 25 interrogatories on any other party, although North Dakota state law permits 50. Interrogatories are written questions that one party in a legal dispute sends to another party. Interrogatories are limited to 25 to prevent excessive use of this discovery device and to balance the need for discovery with judicial scrutiny.
A single interrogatory may request information about the time, place, persons present, and contents of a communication, and this will still be treated as one interrogatory. However, questions that seek information about discrete separate subjects cannot be joined as "subparts" to evade the limitation.
For example, a question asking about communications of a particular type should be treated as a single interrogatory, even though it may request that the time, place, persons present, and contents be stated separately for each such communication. This is because these requests are all related to the same subject matter.
On the other hand, if an interrogatory includes multiple questions on unrelated topics, each question will count as a separate interrogatory. For example, an interrogatory might ask about communications regarding a particular topic and also request information about a separate, unrelated issue. In this case, the question about communications would be one interrogatory, and the question about the unrelated issue would be a second interrogatory.
To serve more than 25 interrogatories (or 50 in North Dakota), a party must secure leave of court or a stipulation from the opposing party.
Constitutional Checks: Necessary for Initiatives?
You may want to see also
Extensions
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for extensions in serving interrogatories. While the default limit is 25 interrogatories per party, extensions can be granted by the court or through a stipulation from the opposing party. This extension allows for additional interrogatories to be served, exceeding the initial limit.
For example, in North Dakota, the default limit is set at 50 interrogatories per party, and extensions beyond this number can be granted with court approval or a stipulation from the opposing party. This flexibility ensures that parties can obtain the necessary information during the discovery process without being restricted by a rigid limit.
It is important to note that the rules specify that parties cannot circumvent the interrogatory limit by dividing their questions into "subparts" that address separate topics. However, a question about a specific type of communication, such as requesting details about the time, place, individuals present, and content, is considered a single interrogatory, even if it seeks information on multiple aspects.
The ability to request extensions highlights the balance between justice and efficiency in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While the limit on interrogatories aims to streamline the process and prevent excessive discovery, the option for extensions recognises that certain cases may require additional interrogatories to ensure a thorough investigation and promote a just outcome.
To summarise, while the default limit on interrogatories is crucial for maintaining procedural efficiency, the availability of extensions showcases the flexibility of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This balance between efficiency and justice ensures that parties can effectively pursue their legal objectives while also ensuring a timely and equitable resolution.
Constitutional Council Members: Life Terms in France?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Rule 33 outlines the number of interrogatories that can be served on any other party in a civil suit.
Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.
A question asking about communications of a particular type that request the time, place, persons present, and contents be stated separately for each communication is considered a single interrogatory and a subpart.
Yes, parties can serve more than 25 interrogatories if they secure leave from the court or a stipulation from the opposing party.
The rule aims to prevent excessive use of interrogatories while allowing needed discovery. It also seeks to provide judicial scrutiny and balance efficiency with justice.
