C.r.c.p. 33
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.
C.r.c.p. 33
Comments
1995
[1] Revised C.R.C.P. 33 now interrelates with the differential case management features of C.R.C.P. 16 and C.R.C.P. 26. Because of mandatory disclosure, substantially less discovery is needed.
[2] A discovery schedule for the case is required by C.R.C.P. 16(b)(1)(IV). Under the requirements of that Rule, the parties must set forth in the Case Management Order the timing and number of interrogatories and the basis for the necessity of such discovery with attention to the presumptive limitation and standards set forth in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2). There is also the requirement that counsel certify they have advised their clients of the estimated expenses and fees involved in the discovery. Discovery is thus tailored to the particular case. The parties in the first instance and ultimately the Court are responsible for setting reasonable limits and preventing abuse.
2017
[1] Pattern interrogatories [Form 20, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 33(e)] have been modified to more appropriately conform to the 2015 amendments to C.R.C.P. 16, 26, and 33. A change to or deletion of a pre-2017 pattern interrogatory should not be construed as making that former interrogatory improper, but instead, only that the particular interrogatory is, as of the effective date of the 2017 rule change, modified as stated or no longer a "pattern interrogatory."
[2] The change to C.R.C.P. 33(e) is made to conform to the holding of Leaffer v. Zarlengo, 44 P.3d 1072 (Colo. 2002).
Annotation I. General Consideration. Law reviews. For article, "Use of Summary Judgments and the Discovery Procedure", see 24 Dicta 193 (1947). For article, "Notes on Proposed Amendments to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure", see 27 Dicta 165 (1950). For article, "Amendments to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure", see 28 Dicta 242 (1951). For article, "Depositions and Discovery, Rules 26 to 37 ", see 28 Dicta 375 (1951). For article, "Depositions and Discovery: Rules 26-37 ", see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 562 (1951). For article, "Plaintiff's Advantageous Use of Discovery, Pre-Trial and Summary Judgment", see 40 Den. L. Ctr. J. 192 (1963). C.R.C.P. 26 to 37 must be construed together along with the requirement that plaintiff establish a prima facie case for punitive damages, as a condition precedent to the plaintiff's right to discovery of defendant's financial information. Leidholt v. District Court, 619 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1980). Civil discovery rules inapplicable to release hearings. Based on §§ 16-8-115 to 16-8-117 and on the special nonadversary nature of a release inquiry, the participants in release proceedings do not have the broad right of discovery as provided in the rules of civil procedure. People v. District Court, 192 Colo. 225, 557 P.2d 414 (1976). Under C.R.C.P. 81(a), the procedure in release hearings under § 16-8-115 is so inconsistent and in conflict with the rules of civil procedure as to make civil discovery rules inapplicable to release hearings. People v. District Court, 192 Colo. 225, 557 P.2d 414 (1976). Applied in Ricci v. Davis, 627 P.2d 1111 (Colo. 1981); Hawkins v. District Court, 638 P.2d 1372 (Colo. 1982). II. Availability and Procedure. If interrogatories, otherwise objectionable, are made material to the issues involved by virtue of stipulation, then the petitioner is entitled to answers to them. Mote v. Koch, 173 Colo. 82, 476 P.2d 255 (1970). Refusal to answer valid interrogatories is grounds for reversal. Where the information sought by interrogatories is subject to discovery under C.R.C.P. 26(b) and 33, the refusal to supply the information requested is in itself a ground for reversal. Dolan v. Mitchell, 179 Colo. 359, 502 P.2d 72 (1972). Refusal to supply names of witnesses intended to be called is ground for reversal. Where Dolan v. Mitchell, 179 Colo. 359, 502 P.2d 72 (1972). Where the primary cause for defendants' failure to answer interrogatories was the inexcusable neglect of defendants' attorney in whom they had placed their confidence, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside a default judgment for failure of the defendants to answer interrogatories, particularly since setting aside the default judgment and ordering a trial on the merits would not unwarrantedly prejudice the plaintiff. Coerber v. Rath, 164 Colo. 294, 435 P.2d 228 (1967). Where interrogatories which are not answered involve matters entirely foreign to the issues involved, any error, therefore, cannot be prejudicial. Mote v. Koch, 173 Colo. 82, 476 P.2d 255 (1970). Interrogatories may be served on governmental official of another state though they cannot be compelled to appear in Colorado for taking depositions. Minnesota ex rel. Minnesota Att'y Gen. v. District Court, 155 Colo. 521, 395 P.2d 601 (1964). Existence of triable issue on punitive damages may be established through discovery, by evidentiary means, or by an offer of proof. Leidholt v. District Court, 619 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1980). Extent of discovery of defendant's financial condition is not unlimited. Leidholt v. District Court, 619 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1980). Scope of discovery of defendant's financial worth for punitive damages case should include only material evidence and should be framed in simple manner. The permissible scope of discovery of defendant's financial worth where a prima facie case for punitive damages has been made should include only material evidence of the defendant's financial worth, and should be framed in such a manner that the questions proposed are not unduly burdensome. Leidholt v. District Court, 619 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1980). Plaintiff has burden of establishing prima facie right to punitive damages. When punitive damages are in issue and information is sought by the plaintiff relating to the defendant's financial condition, justice requires no less than the imposition on the plaintiff of the burden of establishing a prima facie right to punitive damages. Leidholt v. District Court, 619 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1980). Specific requests may constitute unnecessary harassment. Specific questions requesting detailed information regarding the defendant's financial status may constitute unnecessary harassment. Leidholt v. District Court, 619 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1980). Burden is cast upon party who seeks protective order to show annoyance, embarrassment or oppression. Leidholt v. District Court, 619 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1980). Applied in Godfrit v. Judd, 116 Colo. 489, 182 P.2d 907 (1947). III. Scope and Use. Law reviews. For comment on Ridley v. Young appearing below, see 25 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 392 (1953). Annotator's note. Where reference is made in the annotations to the Rules of Civil Procedure, citation and language have been changed where needed to comport with the nomenclature and wording of the 1970 revision of the rules in any still-relevant case decided previous thereto. Only discrete subparts of non-pattern interrogatories, and not those subparts logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question, must be counted toward the interrogatory number limit set forth in the case management order. Leaffer v. Zarlengo, 44 P.3d 1072 (Colo. 2002). Supreme court adopts test set forth in Kendall v. GES Exposition Servs., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 684 (D. Nev. 1997), to aid courts in distinguishing between discrete subparts of non-pattern interrogatories and those that are logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question. Leaffer v. Zarlengo, 44 P.3d 1072 (Colo. 2002). Answers made by a party to interrogatories submitted by his adversary are not evidence until introduced as such during the course of trial. Ridley v. Young, 127 Colo. 46, 253 P.2d 433 (1953). When answers to interrogatories are introduced in evidence, they stand on the same plane as other evidence. Ridley v. Young, 127 Colo. 46, 253 P.2d 433 (1953). Answers to interrogatories may be treated as admissions against interest. Ridley v. Young, 127 Colo. 46, 253 P.2d 433 (1953). An answer filed by a party to an interrogatory has the same effect as a judicial admission made in a pleading or in open court, for it relieves the opposing party of the necessity of proving the fact admitted. Ridley v. Young, 127 Colo. 46, 253 P.2d 433 (1953). An answer to an interrogatory treated as an admission is not conclusive and will not prevail over evidence offered at the trial. Ridley v. Young, 127 Colo. 46, 253 P.2d 433 (1953). Answers to the interrogatories are not "judicial admissions" which are conclusive. Ridley v. Young, 127 Colo. 46, 253 P.2d 433 (1953). Furnishing false answers to interrogatories may constitute first-degree perjury. People v. Chaussee, 847 P.2d 156 (Colo. App. 1992), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 880 P.2d 749 (Colo. 1994). Court need not reject testimony of witnesses which contradicts answers. Where a defendant answers interrogatories under this rule, making admissions therein against his own interest, and thereafter does not appear upon the trial, with plaintiff offering the answers to the interrogatories in evidence, the trial court need not reject the evidence of witnesses, who are called by counsel appearing for defendant, if the testimony of such witnesses contradicts the statements of defendant as contained in the answers to the interrogatories. Ridley v. Young, 127 Colo. 46, 253 P.2d 433 (1953). Rebuttal of evidence is applicable to interrogatories. The language of this rule by which it is provided: "Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under Rule 26(b), and the answers may be used to the extent (permitted by the rules of evidence)", made the rebuttal of evidence under C.R.C.P. 32(c), applicable to interrogatories. Ridley v. Young, 127 Colo. 46, 253 P.2d 433 (1953). Interrogatory answers for discovery should not be irrevocably binding. Answers to interrogatories propounded primarily for the purpose of discovery and to prevent surprise should not be held to be irrevocably binding upon the person making said answers. Ridley v. Young, 127 Colo. 46, 253 P.2d 433 (1953). IV. Option to Produce Business Records. With regard to interrogatories which request information and data obtainable from available documents, the general rule is that a party should not be permitted to compel his opponent to make compilations or perform research and investigations with respect to statistical information which he might make for himself by obtaining the production of the books and documents pursuant to C.R.C.P. 34(a) or by doing a little footwork, as the case may be. Val Vu, Inc. v. Lacey, 31 Colo. App. 55, 497 P.2d 723 (1972). Where one furnishes certain business records and furnishes other documents as they become available by use of C.R.C.P. 34(a), there is no prejudice resulting from the trial court's discretionary ruling that interrogatories are of an oppressive nature. Val Vu, Inc. v. Lacey, 31 Colo. App. 55, 497 P.2d 723 (1972).
For protective orders concerning discovery, see C.R.C.P. 26(c); for answer to a motion for order compelling discovery, see C.R.C.P. 37(a); for sanctions for failure of party to serve answers to interrogatories, see C.R.C.P. 37(b)(2) and (d); for scope of discovery, see C.R.C.P. 26(b). Amendments effective July 1, 2015 for cases filed on or after July 1, 2015.