Responding to Interrogatories

by Will Newman

In an earlier post, I described the process of responding to written questions, called interrogatories, posed by an adversary.  Although this process may sound duplicative of depositions at first, interrogatories play a distinct and important role in commercial disputes. Answering them correctly and appropriately is therefore crucial.

Why should you continue to read this post about responding to interrogatories?

  • Parts of my last post were vague and ambiguous and so you needed more information.

  • You’ve tried yelling at the interrogatories, but that doesn’t feel like it’s working.

  • There’s a chance I explain why they’re not just called “questions.”

Responding Counsel Needs to Properly Understand Each Question

Interrogatories are often drafted by a party seeking information because they do not yet have complete knowledge of a subject. As a result, the questions are often drafted in vague or overbroad ways, such as “Identify each employee who worked on the Alpha Project” or “State whether the plaintiff admits that the Employment Agreement is valid and binding.” Questions like these may prompt an attorney to ask “Well, what does ‘worked on’ mean?” or “Which version of the Employment Agreement?” So the first step in responding to interrogatories to make sure that each question is clear and to identify any ones that are not.

Responding Counsel Then Prepares a List of Responses and Objections

Just like when an attorney responds to a document request, a lawyer drafts a set of responses and objections to interrogatories. This document involves a lot of cut and paste, repeating the questions posed verbatim and, beneath each, stating the objections and then, where applicable, an answer. The U.S. Department of Justice posted one of their responses online, which serves as a good sample.

Common answers that appear in interrogatory answers are statements about a party’s legal position, identification of key witnesses, and a computation of damages. These often require a lot of thought (and sometime math) to make sure the response is thorough.

Getting answers usually involves working with the client and often reviewing source documents to ensure that the answers are correct. This is because a party is often bound by the answers provided in the interrogatories, so it is important that the responses are accurate. Moreover, the client often needs to sign a verification statement, swearing under oath that the statements in the interrogatory responses are true.

Sometimes Negotiation is Necessary to Narrow Interrogatories

If an interrogatory seeks so much information that it would be burdensome to produce the answer, or if there is some applicable privilege that the responding party can cite to avoid answering, the responding party can state that in lieu of an answer. But the party seeking answers may not be satisfied. In that case, they may demand an answer, either by phone, email, or a formal letter.

Often these debates are decided through compromise; one side gives in rather than going to court and making a motion to compel an answer or a motion for a protective order, seeking relief from the burden of answering.

Litigation discovery