When the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the business records, including electronically stored information, of the party upon whom the interrogatory has been served or from an examination, audit, or inspection of such business records, including a compilation, abstract, or summary based thereon, and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served, it is a sufficient answer to such interrogatory to specify the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained and to afford to the party serving the interrogatory reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect such records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries. A specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to identify, as readily as can the party served, the records from which the answer may be ascertained.
Art. 1460.Option to Produce Business Records
Book II. Ordinary Proceedings · Title III. Production of Evidence · Chapter 3. Discovery · Last amended 2007 · Last verified July 30, 2026
In one sentenceArticle 1460 lets a party answer a burdensome interrogatory by pointing to its own business records instead of writing out a narrative answer, as long as both sides face roughly the same burden in digging out the answer and the records are specified in enough detail to be found.
Full Text of Art. 1460
Amendment History
Acts 1976, No. 574, §1. Amended by Acts 1982, No. 450, §1; Acts 2007, No. 140, §1.
Plain-English Summary
Some interrogatory answers are buried in a party's own files rather than in anyone's memory. When that's true, and the work of pulling the answer out of those files would be about as hard for the party asking the question as for the party who has the records, Article 1460 offers a shortcut: instead of writing out a narrative answer, the responding party can point to the records themselves.
That shortcut comes with a real obligation, though. The specification has to be detailed enough that the party asking the question can locate and identify the relevant records as readily as the party who produced them could. A vague pointer to "our files" doesn't satisfy the article; the responding party still has to do the work of narrowing down which records answer which question, and then give the other side a reasonable chance to examine, copy, or audit them.
The option covers electronically stored information as well as paper records, and it extends to compilations, abstracts, or summaries the responding party has already built from the underlying data. It's a practical tool for interrogatories that ask for something like total sales figures or a history of transactions, where the honest answer already lives in a spreadsheet or a ledger.
Frequently Asked Questions
When can I hand over records instead of writing out an interrogatory answer?
When the answer can be derived from your business records, including electronically stored information, and the burden of working out the answer is about the same for both sides.
How specific do I have to be about which records answer the question?
Detailed enough that the party who asked the question can locate and identify the records as easily as you could, plus a reasonable chance to examine, copy, or audit them.
Does this option apply to electronic records?
Yes. Article 1460 covers business records in any form, including electronically stored information, and any compilations or summaries already made from them.
Source & verification. Article text is reproduced verbatim from
the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure (legis.la.gov). Enacted by the Louisiana Legislature.
Last verified July 30, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: business records optionproduce records instead of answeringESI interrogatory answerrecords in lieu of answer