Rule 33.Interrogatories to parties

Interrogatories are written questions one party sends another to pin down facts before trial. Rule 33 lets any party serve them on any other party during standard discovery, subject to the numeric limits set out in Rule 26(c)(5). Each question has to stand on its own — separately stated and separately numbered — so the responding party can address every one without guessing what's being asked.

The responding party gets 28 days to serve a written response. Before answering, that party must restate the interrogatory, then answer it fully and under oath or affirmation, unless the party objects instead. An objection has to come with reasons; leave a reason out and it's treated as waived unless the court excuses the omission for good cause. Utah courts won't let a party dodge a question just because answering calls for an opinion or requires applying law to fact — that alone isn't a valid objection. And even when part of a question is objectionable, the responding party still has to answer whatever part isn't.

Interrogatories can cover any matter that's otherwise discoverable, and the answers can be used at trial the same way any other evidence is, subject to the Rules of Evidence. Rule 33 also gives the responding party an alternative to writing out a narrative answer: when the answer sits in the party's own business records, including electronic records, and pulling it out would take about the same effort for either side, the responding party can point to those records instead. That shortcut comes with strings attached — the responding party has to give the other side a real chance to inspect the records, make copies or summaries, and has to identify the records specifically enough that the asking party can find the answer just as easily as the responding party could.