Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer. The answers are to be signed by the person making them, and the objections signed by the attorney making them. The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories, except that a defendant may serve answers or objections within 45 days after service of the summons and complaint upon that defendant. The court may allow a shorter or longer time. The party submitting the interrogatories may move for an order under Rule 37(a) with respect to any objection to or other failure to answer an interrogatory. A party in responding to interrogatories shall set forth each interrogatory in full immediately preceding the party’s answer or objection thereto.
An interrogatory otherwise proper is not necessarily objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the court may order that such an interrogatory need not be answered until after designated discovery has been completed or until a pretrial conference or other later time.
Me. R. Civ. P. 33
Advisory Committee Note – July 2008
Rule 33 is amended to make clear that “business records” include “electronically stored information,” which is intended to have the same broad meaning set forth in Rule 34(a), which permits discovery of electronically stored information regardless of the medium in which the information is stored or the method by which it is retrieved. The amendment is made with simultaneous amendments to Rules 16, 26, 34 and 37 to provide a procedure for the discovery of electronically stored information. The amendments are taken largely from the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whose Advisory Committees Notes and case law may be consulted for guidance.
Advisory Committee’s Notes 1981
The original Rule 33 in Maine limited the number of interrogatories to 30. The Advisory Committee believes that this arbitrary limitation has not functioned as originally anticipated. The limitation to 30 questions has not been interpreted consistently. Neither has the limitation served to relieve parties from overly-burdensome discovery. Rather, the courts have been increasingly burdened with motions disputing the actual number of interrogatories involved.
The parties may still object, based on Rule 26, should the situation require. This amendment conforms the Maine rule with the federal rule regarding the number of interrogatories permitted.
Advisory Committee’s Notes May 1, 1999
Two amendments are made to Rule 33. The sentence in Rule 33(a) limiting a party to one set of interrogatories in the absence of court order has been deleted. The amendment inserts new language making clear that a party may serve more than one set of interrogatories on another party but may not serve more than a total of 30 interrogatories. For the purposes of the rule, subparts of interrogatories are deemed to be separate interrogatories. The intent of the rule is to limit the total number of interrogatories served and to encourage simple, direct questions rather than elaborate form questions containing multiple parts. Like the limitation on depositions, the court has flexibility to permit more interrogatories in appropriate cases or to limit the number of interrogatories upon request under Rule 26(g). Thus, a court may well conclude that two defendants jointly representing a single interest may be considered one party for the purposes of the rule.