APPENDIX E • RULE 121 LETTER (USED WHEN RECEIVING EVASIVE, NON-RESPONSIVE ANSWERS)

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

APPENDIX E • RULE 121 LETTER (USED WHEN RECEIVING EVASIVE, NON-RESPONSIVE ANSWERS)

This is one of the most potent uses of the materials in this handbook. Oddly enough, the need for Rule 121 letters seems to come up most often with contention interrogatories and accompanying requests for production. Ideally, the mandatory disclosures under Rule 26 should have done away with this type of problem, but discovery evasion still exists.

Consider the following situation: Thirty-three days ago you served a set of basic contention interrogatories. Now the opposing party has responded with evasive, non-responsive answers. To make matters worse, even though you asked only for facts, witnesses, and documents, you find yourself faced with boilerplate objections such as "work product" or "the question calls for a legal conclusion." Under C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-12, you must confer with opposing counsel in an effort to resolve the dispute before you file a motion to compel discovery. (If you are in federal district court, Local Rule 7.1 imposes the same requirement.) You must decide whether to confer by telephone or in writing. Your discovery requests are so fundamental, and your right to the information so well established, that you should not have to compromise. You need reasonable, responsive answers. You reach for this manual, look up the case law you need, and send a letter like the one reproduced below. The names have been changed to protect the guilty:

Dear Mr. Lawyer:
I am writing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-12(5), concerning several of Tom Brown's answers to interrogatories. The answers to Interrogatories 12 through 19 are non-responsive, and I am requesting supplemental responses by July 17.
Interrogatories 12 through 19 are basic contention interrogatories prompted by the allegations of Brown's complaint in the lawsuit. They ask for the facts, witnesses, documents, and expert witnesses supporting his allegations.
In each instance, Brown's answers refuse to specifiy what he is contending in the lawsuit, asserting instead that the matters in question are "for expert opinion." Each answer goes on to say Brown is not qualified to express such an opinion, as if the interrogatories were a discovery method calling for only his personal knowledge. Finally, the answers refuse to identify any facts, witnesses, or documents in support of the allegations of the complaint.
A party answering interrogatories is required to give the information available to him through his

...