Civil Litigation Discovery Legal Topics

12 Grounds for Objecting to Interrogatories

Interrogatories play a key role in litigation: They’re used to gather potential evidence to support a party’s contentions, including facts, witnesses, and writings, or to determine what contentions an opposing party is planning to make. CCP §2030.010(b). But just because they ask doesn’t mean you have to answer. You can object to interrogatories on many grounds. Here’s a list of objections to keep handy when the next batch of interrogatories arrives.

  1. Irrelevant. Interrogatories must be relevant to the subject matter of the action or appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Courts don’t favor this objection though, because the standard of relevancy in discovery proceedings is quite broad. Deaile v General Tel. Co. (1974) 40 CA3d 841, 850.
  2. Overbroad or “shotgun interrogatories.” There’s no statutory provision for objecting on the ground that interrogatories are “too broad,” but courts use this objection to refer to interrogatories that request, e.g., the identity of “all” persons or “every” person having knowledge of relevant facts. Romero v Hern (1969) 276 CA2d 787, 794.
  3. Annoyance, embarrassment, oppression. A party may object to interrogatories when being required to answer would result in “unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” CCP §2023.010(c). This can result from requiring disclosure of information that’s constitutionally protected. See, e.g., Britt v Superior Court  (1978) 20 C3d 844, 860.
  4. Unreasonably cumulative or undue burden and expense. The discovery statutes specifically recognize “burden” as a valid basis to object or seek a protective order. See CCP §§2017.020(a), 2019.030(a)(1)–(2), 2023.010(c), 2030.090(b). The court may also limit discovery on a showing that “[t]he discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.” CCP §2019.030(a)(1).
  5. Information equally available to both parties. A protective order may be proper if “[t]he discovery sought is … obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” CCP §2019.030(a)(1). Thus, a party may object on the ground that the information sought is unduly burdensome because it’s equally available to the propounding party.
  6. Oppression. Interrogatories that are standard form questions that aren’t related to the case are objectionable on grounds of oppression. The objection must be limited to the portion of the interrogatory that’s burdensome or oppressive; the court may require the interrogatory to be rephrased rather than refuse to compel an answer entirely. West Pico Furniture Co. v Superior Court (1961) 56 C2d 407.
  7. Work product protection. Interrogatories are objectionable if they call for matter that falls within the attorney’s work product. CCP §§2018.010–2018.080. For example, when they call for an opponent’s legal reasoning or theories. CCP §2018.030(a). The identity of potential witnesses interviewed by opposing counsel may also be protected by the work product doctrine. Coito v Superior Court (2012) 54 C4th 480.
  8. Privilege. Claims of privilege ordinarily may be raised by objection or by motion for protective order under CCP §2030.090. Generally it’s a valid objection that questions related to the contents of either federal or state tax returns, as well as W-2 forms, are privileged, but there are exceptions, such as in marital dissolution proceedings or when a party has waived the privilege. Schnabel v Superior Court (1993) 5 C4th 704, 720.
  9. Uncertain, ambiguous, or confusing. Objections to interrogatories on the grounds that they are uncertain, ambiguous, or confusing are permissible, but the responding party must answer in good faith as well as she or he can. Deyo v Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA3d 771, 783.
  10. Invasion of privacy of third-party nonlitigant. The right of privacy of third-party nonlitigants may provide a valid basis for objection to interrogatories. However, this right is at most a “conditional privilege,” and a court reviewing such an objection will balance the third party’s privacy right against the requestor’s need for the information. The court may even place limits on how such information may be used. See, e.g., Gonzalez v Superior Court (1995) 33 CA4th 1539, 1546.
  11. Prejudice to party. For an example of this objection, consider that an insured may obtain a stay of the requirement to respond to interrogatories when these demands are prejudicial to its position in the underlying liability action. Haskel Inc. v Superior Court (1995) 33 CA4th 963.
  12. Information too remote from subject matter of action. It’s a valid objection to interrogatories that they stray too far from the issues and seek information that can’t reasonably serve the acknowledged purpose of pretrial discovery. Columbia Board. Sys. v Superior Court 91968) 263 CA2d 12, 18.

Get practice tips and details on each of these objections in California Civil Discovery Practice, chap 7. And check out CEB’s program Objections: Objecting to Written Discovery Requests, available On Demand.

Other CEBblog™ posts you may find useful:

© The Regents of the University of California, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited.

5 replies on “12 Grounds for Objecting to Interrogatories”

What is the best objection to an interrogatory that is loaded with disputed contentions? (What did you do to prevent [disputed incident]?)

Hello Brian,

I am the attorney editor for California Civil Discovery Practice. While at first glance it may seem that the proper objection would be “assumes facts not in evidence,” objections that are applicable to questioning of a trial witness are not valid in response to interrogatories. West Pico Furniture Co. v Superior Court (1961) 56 C2d 407, 421. In West Pico, a party objected to an interrogatory on the basis of “assumes facts not in evidence,” and the court noted that this objection is proper to testimonial questioning, but not to written discovery requests. The court commented, “When…the answer is to be made in writing, after due time for deliberation and consultation with counsel, an answer may be framed which avoids the pitfalls, if any, inherent in the form of the question.” So, the best response to an interrogatory that assumes a disputed incident occurred is to simply state that there is a dispute regarding the named incident and then answer the interrogatory to the extent it requests information that does not require you to buy into the opposing counsel’s disputed version of events. Note that courts apply a “rule of reason” in determining whether an answer to a particular interrogatory is sufficient, the responding party must answer in good faith as well as she or he can, and it is improper to deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer. Deyo v Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA3d 771, 783. With that in mind, note also that an answer to an interrogatory might be as follows: “Assuming this interrogatory was intended to refer to…instead of…, the answer is…” or “To the extent this interrogatory is asking…, the answer is…” I hope this helps! If you have additional questions, please don’t hesitate to email us.

Add your comment to the blog post

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s