California interrogatories: 35 special, unlimited form, no subparts, and a late answer that waives privilege

California splits interrogatories into two kinds and treats them very differently. Specially prepared interrogatories are capped at 35, may not contain subparts, and may not be compound. Official form interrogatories are unlimited.

That design pushes most California written discovery onto the Judicial Council forms, and it makes the 35 you draft yourself worth planning carefully.

Two kinds, one cap

CCP 2030.030(a): a party may propound to another party either or both of:

(1) Thirty-five specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. (2) Any additional number of official form interrogatories, as described in Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 2033.710), that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.

Subdivision (b): except as CCP 2030.070 provides for supplemental interrogatories, "no party shall, as a matter of right, propound to any other party more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories. If the initial set does not exhaust this limit, the balance may be propounded in subsequent sets."

Subdivision (c) — what happens if they go over. Unless a CCP 2030.050 declaration has been made, "a party need only respond to the first 35 specially prepared interrogatories served, if that party states an objection to the balance, under Section 2030.240, on the ground that the limit has been exceeded."

The objection is required. Answer them all without objecting and you have answered them all.

Going over the limit — CCP 2030.040 and 2030.050: a party may propound more by attaching the Declaration for Additional Discovery, warranted by the complexity or quantity of the issues. If the responding party then moves for a protective order on the ground the number is unwarranted, the burden of justifying it falls on the propounding party.

The drafting rules

CCP 2030.060 is a short list, and several items are the basis of routine objections:

• interrogatories are numbered consecutively by set;
• immediately below the case title appear the propounding party, set number and responding party;
• each interrogatory is separately set forth and identified;
• each is "full and complete in and of itself," with no preface or instruction unless approved under CCP 2033.710 and following;
• any specially defined term is typed in all capitals wherever it appears;
• "No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question."

That last one is a flat prohibition, not a counting rule. Federal practice counts discrete subparts against the 25; California simply forbids them in a specially prepared interrogatory. "State all facts, identify all witnesses, and identify all documents supporting your contention" is three interrogatories in California, not one.

And no continuing interrogatories — CCP 2030.060(g): "An interrogatory may not be made a continuing one so as to impose on the party responding to it a duty to supplement an answer to it that was initially correct and complete with later acquired information."

California has no general supplementation duty of the FRCP 26(e) kind. The replacement is the supplemental interrogatory.

Supplemental interrogatories: twice, then once

CCP 2030.070(a): in addition to the numbers permitted by CCP 2030.030 and 2030.040, a party may propound "a supplemental interrogatory to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by any party in response to interrogatories."

Subdivision (b) — the allowance:

A party may propound a supplemental interrogatory twice before the initial setting of a trial date, and, subject to the time limits on discovery proceedings and motions provided in Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2024.010), once after the initial setting of a trial date.

Three uses in total, split by the trial-setting line. The court may allow more on a showing of good cause.

This is the mechanism that does the work of a supplementation duty elsewhere, and it is easy to waste. Do not spend a pre-trial-date supplemental interrogatory early in the case.

When you can serve them

A defendant: at any time, without leave — CCP 2030.020(a).

A plaintiff: at any time that is 10 days after service of the summons on, or appearance by, that party, whichever occurs first — CCP 2030.020(b), and the same 10 days in an unlawful detainer action under subdivision (c). The court may allow an earlier time for good cause.

Ten days for interrogatories and requests for admission; 20 days for depositions under CCP 2025.210(b).

Thirty days to respond — five in an unlawful detainer

CCP 2030.260(a): within 30 days after service, the responding party serves the original response on the propounding party, unless the court has shortened or extended the time on motion.

Subdivision (b): in an unlawful detainer action, the responding party "shall have five days from the date of service to respond."

Subdivision (c) — copies to everyone, with an escape. The responding party must also serve a copy on all other appearing parties. But "on motion, with or without notice, the court may relieve the party from this requirement on its determination that service on all other parties would be unduly expensive or burdensome."

That relief provision matters in a case with many parties.

What a response must contain

CCP 2030.220(a): each answer "shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits."

(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, "it shall be answered to the extent possible."

(c) And where the responding party lacks personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully, "that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party."

So "I don't know" is not an answer by itself. You must say you lack the knowledge and go and ask — subject to the equally-available exception.

Objections — CCP 2030.240: where only part is objectionable, "the remainder shall be answered." The specific ground must be set forth clearly; a privilege objection must name the particular privilege invoked; and a work product claim "shall be expressly asserted."

Signatures — CCP 2030.250: the party signs under oath unless the response contains only objections; an entity signs through an officer or agent; the attorney signs any response containing an objection. Where an attorney signs for an entity, that party waives lawyer-client privilege and work product protection as to later discovery from that attorney about the sources of the information in the response.

The option to produce documents

CCP 2030.230: where answering "would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary" of the responding party's documents, and the burden of doing so "would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party," it is a sufficient answer to refer to this section and specify the writings from which the answer may be derived.

Three conditions in practice:

1. the answer requires a compilation or summary — not merely a look-up;
2. the burden is substantially the same for both sides; and
3. the specification is "in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents."

Then the responding party "shall afford … a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries."

A bare citation to a document production does not comply. And if the option is exercised badly, CCP 2030.300(a)(2) makes that its own ground for a motion to compel further response.

Missing the deadline

CCP 2030.290 is the provision that decides more California discovery disputes than any other.

(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.

Everything goes: the document option, every objection, privilege included. Relief requires a motion and both statutory conditions — a subsequent response in substantial compliance, and a failure that was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

(b) The propounding party may move for an order compelling response. Note the difference from requests for admission: there is no deemed-admitted mechanism here, because there is nothing to admit. The remedy is an order to answer.

(c) Sanctions are mandatory against whoever unsuccessfully makes or opposes that motion, absent substantial justification. And disobeying an order compelling answers exposes the party to issue, evidence or terminating sanctions.

There is no deadline on a motion to compel a response. The 45-day clock in CCP 2030.300(c) applies only to motions to compel a further response — which is to say, it starts when a verified response arrives. Where nothing was served at all, nothing starts the clock.

Compelling a further response: 45 days

CCP 2030.300(a) allows a motion where:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

The deadline — subdivision (c): unless notice is given "within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing," the propounding party waives the right to compel a further response.

Two words carry the weight. Verified: an unverified response does not start the clock. In writing: an oral extension does not extend it.

The motion needs a meet and confer declaration under CCP 2016.040, and CCP 2030.300(b)(2) allows the court, in lieu of the separate statement the Rules of Court would require, to accept "a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute."

Amending an answer

CCP 2030.310(a): without leave of court, a party may serve an amended answer containing information "subsequently discovered, inadvertently omitted, or mistakenly stated."

But the original does not disappear. "At the trial of the action, the propounding party or any other party may use the initial answer under Section 2030.410, and the responding party may then use the amended answer." Both go in front of the jury.

And the initial answer can be made binding — subdivision (b) and (c). The propounding party may move to have the initial answer deemed binding, and the court shall grant that motion if all three conditions are satisfied:

(1) The initial failure … to answer the interrogatory correctly has substantially prejudiced the party who propounded the interrogatory. (2) The responding party has failed to show substantial justification for the initial answer. (3) The prejudice to the propounding party cannot be cured either by a continuance to permit further discovery or by the use of the initial answer under Section 2030.410.

All three, and the third is a real limit — where a continuance would fix it, the motion fails.

Using answers at trial

CCP 2030.410: at trial, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, "the propounding party or any party other than the responding party may use any answer or part of an answer to an interrogatory only against the responding party."

And it is no objection that the responding party "is available to testify, has testified, or will testify."

Note the asymmetry: a party cannot put its own interrogatory answers in. They are usable against the party who gave them, and by nobody else in their own favor.

Protective orders

CCP 2030.090 lets the responding party, or any other party or affected person, promptly move for a protective order with a meet and confer declaration. The seven listed directions include that the set or particular interrogatories need not be answered; that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted notwithstanding a CCP 2030.050 declaration; that the response time be extended; that the method of discovery be an oral deposition instead; and that trade secrets be protected or answers sealed.

Sanctions run against whoever unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion.

How California compares

A short checklist

Propounding them

1. Use the form interrogatories first. They are unlimited and they do not touch your 35.
2. Draft the 35 without subparts. Compound, conjunctive and disjunctive questions are barred outright.
3. Capitalise defined terms and keep each interrogatory complete in itself, with no preface.
4. Save your supplemental interrogatories — two before a trial date is set, one after.
5. Calendar 45 days from the verified response for any motion to compel further, and get any extension in writing with a date.
6. If they exercised the CCP 2030.230 option, test the specification — an inadequate one is its own ground.

Responding to them

1. Calendar 30 days — or five, in an unlawful detainer.
2. Object to anything beyond 35 on that ground, or you have waived the cap.
3. Never let the deadline pass. A late response waives every objection, privilege included, and getting relief takes a motion and two findings.
4. If you lack knowledge, say so and then go and ask — unless the information is equally available to the other side.
5. Have the party verify the response. Objections-only responses are signed by counsel; anything else needs the party's oath.
6. If an answer turns out wrong, amend promptly — you may do it without leave, but the original stays usable and can be made binding.

Where these sections live

• CCP 2016.040 — Meet and confer declaration
• CCP 2030.020 — When interrogatories may be propounded
• CCP 2030.030 — Number of interrogatories
• CCP 2030.060 — Form of interrogatories
• CCP 2030.070 — Supplemental interrogatories
• CCP 2030.090 — Protective orders
• CCP 2030.220 — Content of answers
• CCP 2030.230 — Option to produce writings
• CCP 2030.260 — Time to respond
• CCP 2030.290 — Failure to respond; waiver
• CCP 2030.300 — Motion to compel further response
• CCP 2030.310 — Amended answers
• CCP 2030.410 — Use of answers at trial

This page explains what the Code says. It isn't legal advice, and the Judicial Council form interrogatories and the separate-statement requirements in the California Rules of Court are outside what this site reproduces.