Objections and Responses to Interrogatories
(AZ)

Summary

This template may be used when responding to uniform and non-uniform interrogatories served on you or your client in a civil lawsuit in Arizona state court. This template contains practical guidance, drafting notes, and alternate clauses. Interrogatories are a frequently used discovery device consisting of written questions served by a party on another party. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1), 26. Interrogatories and other discovery may be employed in any sequence. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2). An interrogatory may relate to any matter—not privileged—relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 33(a)(2). An interrogatory may ask for a party's opinion, a party's contention about the facts, or application of law to the facts. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(3). Uniform interrogatories are available for the following matters: • Medical malpractice (Ariz. R. Civ. P. Form 4A/4) • Personal injury (Ariz. R. Civ. P. Form 5) –and– • Contract (Ariz. R. Civ. P. Form 6) Uniform interrogatories may be employed when it is appropriate to the legal or factual issues of the case; the title of the complaint or the causes of action are not controlling. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(4). Once served, the responding party must respond to the requests in writing within 30 calendar days after being served, but a defendant may serve its written responses and objections within 60 days after service of the summons and complaint on that defendant. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(3)(A). An additional 5 calendar days may be added if service of the request was accomplished by mail, email or means other than hand-delivery. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 6(c). When the interrogatories first are received, forward them to your clients with guidance as to what questions they must provide information and draft answers. Give them a deadline by which to respond, allowing sufficient time for the final responses to be prepared and served. The responding party must serve written answers to the interrogatories separately and fully under oath. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). The responding party has an obligation to review appropriate materials and respond to the fullest extent possible. See Fredrics v. City of Scottsdale, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3275, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2022) (quoting Mike v. City of Phoenix, 497 F. Supp. 3d, 442,446 (D. Ariz. 2020)). The party itself must sign, or verify, the substantive answers. The responding party must include any information available to it when answering. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). Interrogatories may be used at trial or in a motion for summary judgment to the extent allowed by the Arizona Rules of Evidence. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 33(c). Ariz. Rule Civ. P. 33(d) provides that a party may produce records in lieu of answering an interrogatory, but specifies that these must be the "business records" of the party answering the interrogatories. Accordingly, for example, when a plaintiff in a personal injury suit produces medical records instead of answering an interrogatory, that plaintiff has not complied with Rule 33(d), because the medical records aren't plaintiff's business records (although they may be the business records of the healthcare provider). Business records produced in lieu of answering an interrogatory should be done in a manner that permits the same direct and economical access that is available to the responding party. An answering party is under an affirmative obligation to supplement interrogatory answers. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(g). Supplementation must be done within 30 days of the answering party learning that its answer is materially incomplete or incorrect. If there is a hearing or deposition scheduled within 30 days of the answering party learning of its need to supplement, the answering party must supplement or correct its answer reasonably in advance of the hearing or deposition. You may object to an interrogatory on behalf of your client. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). When responding to interrogatories, take several tactical considerations into account. If your objection is deemed to be improper, you subject your client (and potentially yourself) to sanctions in litigation. You must have a thorough understanding of what objections are appropriate. The burden of proving the validity of an objection (if challenged) is on the objecting party. Cornet Stores v. Superior Court, 108 Ariz. 84, 86 (1972). The objection must be stated with specificity. Failure to timely object waives the objection unless the court, upon finding of good cause, excuses the failure to object. Your client still must answer the interrogatory to the extent it is not objectionable. You, as attorney for your client, must sign the objections except to reveal information such as attorney-client privileged communications. You may also file for a protective order to avoid annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Common objections to interrogatories are: • Exceeding the number of permissible interrogatories o Arizona has a tiered discovery system so, depending on which tier a case falls under, a party may serve between 5 and 20 interrogatories on another party without leave of court. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2), 26.2(f). o Be aware that subparts of interrogatories count toward the total allowed, but in practice, subparts directly related to the interrogatory will be counted as one, especially when the subpart simply modifies or defines the interrogatory. A uniform interrogatory and its subparts, however, only count as one interrogatory. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). o The number of permissible interrogatories is limited to each side of the case—plaintiff, defendant, or third-party defendant—when there are multiple parties grouped together by side. For example, if a plaintiff sues three defendants in a tier 2 case, the three defendants collectively are limited to 10 interrogatories in total. This may require significant negotiation between parties on the same side to obtain the information needed by all. o A party seeking discovery beyond the tier limits must first file a motion or stipulation with the court before the close of discovery. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26.2(g). o The court may alter the limits set forth in the rules considering the proportionality of the discovery requests to the needs of the case, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), (2)(A)–(C). o The court may also adjust the number of interrogatories allowable when there are multiple parties grouped together as a common side. Ariz. R. Civ P. 26.2(h). • Timeliness of the interrogatories: o "A party may serve on any other party interrogatories" at any time after the commencement of suit without leave of court. Ariz. R. Civ. P.33(a). o A party may not, however, serve interrogatories before the requesting party serves its initial disclosure statement under Rule 26.1. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1). o Additionally, the court will typically set a deadline for propounding written discovery in its Scheduling Order under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 16(c), together with dates for completion of all discovery. • Irrelevance or the information sought not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence o Parties may seek discovery only regarding information that is relevant to any party's claim or defense. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 33(a)(3). o Discovery is not limited to admissible evidence. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). o The information sought need only be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 167 Ariz. 135, 138 (App. 1991). o Uniform interrogatories may be employed when it is appropriate to the legal or factual issues of the case; the title of the complaint or the causes of action are not controlling. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(4). Because subparts of uniform interrogatories are not counted against the total allowed number of interrogatories, they are often used rather than self-drafted interrogatories when possible. o Nonetheless, the court, on its own or upon motion, must limit discovery that is outside the scope of Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). o A party is not entitled to obtain discovery of electronically stored information that is sought for purposes unrelated to the case. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B)(ii). • Compound: o Use this objection when an interrogatory seeks responses to multiple discrete subjects in a single interrogatory. See, e.g., Trevino v. ACB Am., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 612, 614 (N.D. Cal. 2006). o Even if the other side does not exceed the limit in the set of interrogatories containing the question, preserve the objection in the event future interrogatories are served. • Overly broad: o Use this objection when answering the interrogatory in full as written would include both relevant and irrelevant information. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204984 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (interrogatory requesting previous TCPA lawsuits that the defendant was involved in was overbroad in that it would include irrelevant lawsuits involving text messages or state law violations). o Use this objection to preserve it for trial should opposing counsel attempt to impeach your client at trial as to why a fact was omitted from the interrogatory answer. o The responding party is not required to provide a narrative account of its case. See Fredrics v. City of Scottsdale, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3275, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2022); Wilcox v. Changala, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5471, at *7 (E.D. Wash. 2012) (an interrogatory that asks the responding party to provide a narrative of its case is overbroad). o Courts often resolve over broad objection by limiting the response to the principal or material facts. See Fredrics v. City of Scottsdale, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3275, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2022). o Use of uniform interrogatories is presumptively deemed not to be overly broad. State Bar Committee Notes, 2009 Amendment to Rule 33(a)(4) (uniform interrogatories). • Vague and ambiguous: o Use this objection when the interrogatory or a term used therein is unclear or subject to several different meanings. o The language of uniform interrogatories is presumptively deemed not to be vague or ambiguous. State Bar Committee Notes, 2009 Amendment to Rule 33(a)(4) (uniform interrogatories). • Harassing: o Use this objection when the interrogatory seeks information that is extremely personal, embarrassing, or implicates a privacy interest of your client. See, e.g., Youngevity Int'l, Inc. v. Smith, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189236, at *6 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (interrogatory requesting details on party's previous relationships was not relevant and calculated to harass). o Use of uniform interrogatories is presumptively deemed to not be harassment. State Bar Committee Notes, 2009 Amendment to Rule 33(a)(4) (uniform interrogatories). o This objection may be accompanied by a protective order. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(c). • Unduly burdensome o Discovery may not be overly expansive but must be tailored to the particular case considering the proportionality of the discovery requests to the needs of the case, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), (2)(A)–(C). o An interrogatory that requires the responding party to incur excessive cost is overly broad. o A responding party is not required to conduct extensive research to answer the interrogatory. See Fredrics v. City of Scottsdale, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3275, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2022) (quoting Mike v. City of Phoenix, 497 F. Supp. 3d, 442, 446 (D. Ariz. 2020)). o An interrogatory requesting "each and every" instance or witness may be overly broad. See, e.g., Wilcox v. Changala, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5471 (E.D. Wash. 2012) (an interrogatory that asks the responding party to provide "each and every" fact or witness supporting its case is overbroad). o If you are producing business records that contain electronically stored information in response to an interrogatory, you are only required to produce electronically stored information that is reasonably accessible and does not cause the responding party to incur an undue burden or expense. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B)(i) & (e). Additionally, your client is generally not required to restore data under forensic means except in certain circumstances. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B)(ii). o Use this objection for an integratory that requests information that can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). o This objection may be accompanied by a protective order. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(c). • Privileged or protected: o Attorney-client privilege. Use this objection if the interrogatory requests information given to you or other attorney by your client, or communication you made to your client, within the scope of your professional employment. State ex rel. Thomas v. Schneider, 212 Ariz. 292, 295 ¶ 15 (App. 2006). o Work product. Use this objection if the interrogatory requests your, or any other attorney representing your client, mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. The work product protection also extends to other representatives of your client including consultants, experts retained only for trial preparation, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent. Furthermore, with certain exceptions, your communications with a testifying expert are protected. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(C). o Confidentiality. Use this objection if the interrogatory requests your client's confidential information, including a trade secret. A.R.S. §§ 44-401–407; Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 247 Ariz. 567, 571–72 (App. 2019); see also, e.g., Michelin N. Am., Inc. v. Rea, 2014 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 78, at *15 ¶ 21 (App. 2015). o You must produce a privilege log when using this objection to assert attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(6). o This objection may be accompanied by a protective order. • Cumulative or already known to plaintiff: o Use this objection when the interrogatory is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of other discovery. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). o Use this objection if the requesting party has had ample opportunity to obtain the information requested by other discovery. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(ii). o This objection may be accompanied by a motion. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). • Seeks information only known to third parties: o Under Arizona law, a responding party is required to provide the information available to it. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). o Use this objection for an integratory that requests information that can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). • Calls for speculation: o Generally, a party is not required to speculate when responding to discovery requests. See, e.g., Hoffman v. Jones, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197442, at *9 (E.D. Cal. 2017). • 5th Amendment / Self-Incrimination • Premature: o When an interrogatory asks for a party's opinion, a party's contention about the facts, or application of law to the facts, the court may, on motion, order that the interrogatory need not be answered until a later time. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(3). o This objection must be accompanied by a motion. The foregoing list of objections and examples therein is not intended to be all-encompassing or exclusive of all proper objections. Remember, objections must be specific. It is not sufficient to just state the objection. You should explain why the interrogatory is objectionable under the grounds stated. Before filing a discovery motion, you must confer with opposing counsel and attach a good faith consultation certificate with your motion. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(i). This template assumes the defendant is responding to interrogatories served by the plaintiff. If you represent the plaintiff or co-defendant, you should modify the template accordingly. For more information on drafting and serving responses to interrogatories, see Interrogatories: Responding to Interrogatories (AZ). For a related annotated template, see Interrogatories (AZ).