§ 6-333.Interrogatories to parties.

Current version (effective January 1, 2025)

COMMENTS TO § 6-333 [1] Although interrogatories can be a helpful discovery method, they can also be abused. The rule therefore imposes a numerical limit on interrogatories. A party may not serve more than 50 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts, on another party unless the court orders or the parties stipulate otherwise. The rule does not specify how to count interrogatories. In applying the numerical limit imposed by Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, most federal courts have said that an interrogatory with subparts should be counted as one interrogatory if the “subparts are logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.” Erfindergemeinschaft Uropep GbR v. Eli Lilly and Company, 315 F.R.D. 191, 196 (E.D. Tex. 2016). [2] The rule requires a party responding to an interrogatory to reproduce the interrogatory and then state its answer or objection. That is easier to do if the party is served with the interrogatories in a readily editable electronic format such as Word or WordPerfect. But parties are sometimes served with interrogatories in a paper format or in a non-readily editable electronic format such PDF. Subpart (a)(3) was added in 2024 to address the situation. The subpart requires the serving party to provide the responding party with an electronic copy of the interrogatories in a readily editable format if the responding party asks for such a copy. [3] Although the 2024 Amendments made significant stylistic changes to the rule, they made very few substantive changes. One of the substantive changes was the addition of subpart (b)(4). The subpart requires an objecting party to state the grounds for its objection and to explain why the interrogatory is objectionable on those grounds. The purpose of the requirement is to eliminate what are often called “boilerplate objections” – in other words, objections that state objections in a conclusory way (for example, “burdensome, oppressive, and irrelevant”) without explaining the specific reasons for the objection. Requiring parties to state the specific reasons for the objection may discourage the parties from making baseless objections and may also help them resolve discovery disputes informally by identifying the specific problems that the objecting party has with the interrogatory. [4] Subpart (b)(4) also provides that an objection is waived if the party fails to make the objection in a timely manner. Treating such a failure as a waiver, however, may sometimes be unduly harsh. The rule therefore gives the court the discretion to excuse the failure if there is good cause for doing so.

Prior version (in effect before January 1, 2025)

COMMENTS TO RULE 33 33(a) This subsection differs from the federal rules and former Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-1267.37 and 25-1267.38 (Repealed 1982) by imposing a limit of 50 interrogatories upon any party, unless the court permits more for good cause shown. Because interrogatories are particularly subject to being abused or improperly used, this discovery device has been limited unless a party can show that the complexity of the case requires the use of additional interrogatories. 33(b) This subsection expands former Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1267.38 (Repealed 1982) and follows the federal rules by allowing interrogatories that involve opinions. This follows the federal rule by eliminating an unnecessary restriction on interrogatories. The overall limit on interrogatories and consequent elimination of extensive sets of interrogatories should minimize any chance for abuse. 33(c) This follows the federal rule; it is a procedure for handling discovery from voluminous records that is necessary for certain large cases. No Nebraska statutory section served as precedent for this subsection of the rules.