Also known as: FRCP 33 · Rule 33 · Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 · interrogatories · FRCP interrogatories
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal procedural rule authorizing parties to serve written interrogatories on other parties in civil actions. The rule imposes a presumptive limit of twenty-five interrogatories including all discrete subparts unless the parties stipulate otherwise or the court orders additional ones consistent with proportionality requirements.
Felicity French served twenty-six interrogatories on Ferrum Metals in a contract dispute. Ferrum Metals objected that the service violated the numerical cap. The court sustained the objection and required French to withdraw one interrogatory before responses were due.
Forrest Falconer served interrogatories on Frostline Textiles seeking details of witness interviews conducted by the company's counsel after litigation was anticipated. Frostline Textiles withheld the information on work-product grounds. The court upheld the objection because Falconer failed to show substantial need or undue hardship.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Felicia Fuentes answered interrogatories from Fulton Shipping that established the absence of any genuine dispute over a key fact. Fulton Shipping then moved for summary judgment relying on those answers. The court granted the motion because the interrogatory responses left no triable issue.
Frederick Ferguson responded to interrogatories from Freeman Engineering by admitting he lacked evidence on an essential element of his claim. Freeman Engineering moved for summary judgment citing those admissions. The court granted the motion after Ferguson failed to produce contrary evidence.
Faith Fitzgerald served interrogatories on Ferrum Metals asking for the identities of all persons involved in an alleged price-fixing scheme. Ferrum Metals moved to strike the requests as overly broad. The court denied the motion and ordered answers limited to participants known to the company.
Felix Franco received interrogatories from the government demanding production of documents whose existence was not previously known. Franco asserted that compliance would constitute testimonial self-incrimination. The court quashed the interrogatories because the act of production itself would provide incriminating information.
A party may serve no more than twenty-five written interrogatories on any other party, counting all discrete subparts, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise.
Supporting sources
No. 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.
Supporting sources
Materials prepared by counsel in anticipation of litigation, such as interview notes, are protected work product. A party seeking them through interrogatories must make a strong showing of substantial need and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means without undue hardship.
Supporting sources
Yes. Admissions or other responses in interrogatory answers may establish the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact and thereby support summary judgment.
Supporting sources
An attorney who signs and serves interrogatories that are interposed for an improper purpose, such as to harass or needlessly increase costs, may be sanctioned under the certification requirements of the discovery rules.
Supporting sources
…naming as defendants the two tug owners, individually and as partners, and the railroad. One year later, petitioner filed 39 interrogatories directed to the tug owners. The 38th interrogatory read: “State whether any statements of the members of the crews of the Tugs ‘J. M. Taylor’ and ‘Philadelphia’ or of any other vessel were…