Arizona

Civil Procedure

Civil Procedure

Rule 33 – Interrogatories to Parties

(a)Generally.

(1)Definition. Interrogatories are written questions served by a party on another party.
(2)Number. a party may serve on any other party interrogatories, subject to the numeric limits in Rule 26.2(f) and the procedures in Rule 26.2(g) and (h) for obtaining permission to exceed those limits. Each subpart of an interrogatory counts as one interrogatory, except that a A uniform interrogatory and its subparts count as one interrogatory.
(3)Scope. An interrogatory may ask about any matter allowed under Rule 26(b). An interrogatory is not improper merely because it asks for an opinion. An interrogatory may ask for a party’s contention about facts or the application of law to facts, but the court may, on motion, order that such a contention interrogatory need not be answered until a later time.
(4)Uniform Interrogatories. Rule 84, Forms 4, 5, and 6, contain uniform interrogatories that a party may use under this rule. A party may use a uniform interrogatory when it is appropriate to the legal or factual issues of the particular action, regardless of how the action or claims are designated. A party propounding a uniform interrogatory may do so by serving a notice that identifies the uniform interrogatory by form and number. A party may limit the scope of a uniform interrogatory-such as by requesting a response only as to particular persons, events, or issues-without converting it into a nonuniform interrogatory.
(b)Answers and Objections.

(1)Time to Respond. Unless the parties agree or the court orders otherwise, the responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories. Subject to compliance with Rule 26(f)(1) by the party serving discovery, a defendant may serve its answers and any objections within 60 days after service-or execution of a waiver of service- of the summons and complaint on that defendant.
(2)Answers Under Oath. Subject to Rule 33(b)(3), an answering party must answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath. In answering an interrogatory, a party-including a public or private entity-must furnish the information available to it. It must also reproduce the text of an interrogatory immediately above its answer to that interrogatory.
(3)Objections. The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure. If a party states an objection, it must still answer the interrogatory to the extent that it is not objectionable.
(4)Signature. The party who answers the interrogatories must sign them under oath. If the answering party is a public or private entity, an authorized representative with knowledge of the information contained in the answers, obtained after reasonable inquiry, must sign them under oath. An attorney who objects to any interrogatories must sign the objections.
(c)Use. An answer to an interrogatory may be used to the extent allowed by the Arizona Rules of Evidence.
(d)Option to Produce Business Records. If the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing, compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party’s business records (including electronically stored information), and if the burden of determining the answer will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party may answer by:

(1) specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could; and
(2) giving the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries.

Ariz. R. Civ. P. 33

Amended effective January 1, 2017; amended August 31, 2017, effective July 1, 2018.

State Bar Committee Note

1970 Amendment to Rule 33(d)

[Formerly Rule 33(c) ]

[Rule 33(d) (formerly Rule 33(c) )] is a new subdivision, adapted from Calif. Code Civ. Proc. ยง 2030(c), relating especially to interrogatories which require a party to engage in burdensome or expensive research into his own business records in order to give an answer. The subdivision gives the party an option to make the records available and place the burden of research on the party who seeks the information. The interrogating party is protected against abusive use of this provision through the requirement that the burden of ascertaining the answer be substantially the same for both sides. A respondent may not impose on an interrogating party a mass of records as to which research is feasible only for one familiar with the records. At the same time, the respondent unable to invoke this subdivision still has the protection available to him under new Rule 26(c) against oppressive or unduly burdensome or expensive interrogatories. And even when the respondent successfully invoke the subdivision, the court is not deprived of its usual power, in appropriate cases, to require that the interrogating party reimburse the respondent for the expense of assembling his records and making them intelligible.

State Bar Committee Note

1983 Amendment to Rule 33(d)

[Formerly Rule 33(c) ]

A party who is permitted by the terms of [Rule 33(d) (formerly Rule 33(c) )] to offer records for inspection in lieu of answering an interrogatory should offer them in a manner that permits the same direct and economical access that is available to the party. If the information sought exists in the form of compilations, abstracts or summaries then available to the responding party, those should be made available to the interrogating party. The final sentence of Rule 33 [d] is added to make it clear that a responding party has the duty to specify by category and location, the records from which answers to interrogatories can be derived or ascertained.

Committee Comment

2009 Amendment to Rule 33(a)(4) (Uniform Interrogatories)

[Formerly Rule 33.1 ]

The uniform interrogatories stated in the Appendix of Forms under Rule 84 are for use in any litigation brought under the civil rules, and the category heading for each Form is suggestive in nature and not restrictive; no uniform interrogatory is limited by the nature of the cause of action. Further, in light of Rules 26.1 and 26.2 and their comments, use of the uniform interrogatories is presumptively deemed to not be harassing or overly broad, and their language is presumptively not vague or ambiguous. Disputes arising from the use of the interrogatories should be considered in light of the standard stated in Rule 26(b)(1).