And the Interrogatory’s biggest sin is _____!

The interrogatory’s greatest sin lies in its duplicity. It parades itself as a legal tool, promoting efficiency, through exchanges of information, all in furtherance of advancing a case. The interrogatory, however, supports none of these interests; rather, it works against them.

First, let’s face it, the interrogatory seldom reveals useful or usable information. We can always hope, but the result almost always disappoints us. Instead, the interrogatory norm has become lawyer-crafted obfuscations, with facts lurking behind walls of objections and piles of chaff.

Second, interrogatories inevitably lead to wasteful litigation, often at the periphery of relevance, where the meaning of “related” or “all” is hotly contested, and legal dances are held on the head of the “vagueness” or “overbreadth” pin. As a result, this (absence of) information usually comes at a great cost—time and money—to all those who Rule 33 ensnares: clients, above all, as well as lawyers, paralegals, judges, clerks, and taxpayers.

And, third, far from advancing a case, propounding interrogatories is neither a litigation benefit, nor a neutral procedural move; rather, it usually hurts your client’s case. Greater case benefits can be earned through depositions, with far better results. One responding to an interrogatory request, as opposed to someone sitting for a deposition, actually realizes many tactical benefits that undercut the viability of interrogatories as a useful discovery tool:

The Controlled Environment. As lawyers, we often fear the unknown. You’re defending a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and your client has just been asked a question that goes to the heart of the case. In that split second before she answers, you’re hoping, indeed praying, that she answers in the way that best supports your positions. You have little control over the environment. You don’t know if she’ll remember all of the facts. You don’t know if she’ll remember your preparation sessions. You don’t know if she’ll remember the case themes. The answer is out of your hands. The opposite is true of your opponent’s response to your interrogatories. Opposing counsel can craft the response, with the assistance of her client, in a manner most beneficial to the opponent’s case. That lawyer can control what is said, how it’s said, and what will reside on the cutting room floor.

Putting Your Best Foot Forward. In a related sense, responding to interrogatories gives you the power to make your client’s case in the manner that you have determined will best support your themes and undercut those of your opponents. As such, responding to interrogatories provides you with a tactical advantage in the case.

Unlimited Time. Going back to the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, your client has a few seconds to evaluate the critical question and develop an answer that, at worst, doesn’t hurt your case and, at best, moves your case forward. This is in stark contrast to the 30 days or so one has to answer the same question in an interrogatory. I’ll take the 30 days every time.

Unlimited Resources. Unlike a deposition, an interrogatory provides one with the ability to seek out the people and the paper that allows for a complete (and hopefully, beneficial) answer to the question propounded.

Pressure. We’ve all seen the havoc pressure can wreak on a deponent. As the person taking the deposition, you can use this pressure to your advantage, to obtain the admissions that support your themes and your case. On the flip side, that same pressure exerts itself on your client as a deponent, and the results can be devastating to the case. The same cannot be said for interrogatories. Without the pressure, one can answer the interrogatory in a measured and controlled manner, thereby allowing, again, your client to best make her case.

The Perfect Deposition Preparation. Receiving interrogatories, especially contention rogs, confers another benefit: a wonderful deposition preparation tool. You obtain the benefit of viewing the case through the lens of your opponent. You know what they deem important. You have crafted your answers carefully to further your case. What better method of preparing your client for his deposition than going over in great detail the interrogatory questions and responses? Thus, by firing off these sorts of interrogatories lawyers provide another tactical advantage, not to their client, but to their opponent.

The wasted time and money costs brought by interrogatories far outweigh their limited usefulness. It is time for them to go.