Chapter 2 - § 2.1 • EFFECTIVE USE OF INTERROGATORIES

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 2.1 • EFFECTIVE USE OF INTERROGATORIES

Colorado courts refer to and rely on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and federal legal precedent construing federal rules as "interpretational aids" to assist in interpreting the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, therefore much of the case law cited in this chapter is from federal courts. In large part, the Colorado rules mirror the federal rules substantially, but to the extent there are differences in state rules versus federal rules, the differences have been noted in this chapter. However, practitioners should refer to the relevant rule of civil procedure and authority on point to ensure that neither the rule nor the corresponding legal precedent has changed.

➤ Garcia v. Schneider Energy Servs., Inc., 287 P.3d 112, 114 (Colo. 2012).

While the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure provide for pattern interrogatories, some cases will not be suited for the use of the pattern interrogatories. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for pattern interrogatories. Understanding the proper uses for interrogatories will help an attorney draft appropriate interrogatories and can help in crafting an argument if the interrogatories are challenged. As touched upon in Chapter 1, interrogatories are well suited for a number of purposes, including (1) fleshing out the opponent's case, (2) pinning down legal theories as well as primary facts supporting them, (3) developing facts that can support summary judgment or other motions, and (4) identifying the existence of individuals and documents that have information relevant to the claims or defenses. See Jayne H. Lee, Inc. v. Flagstaff Indus. Corp., 173 F.R.D. 651, 652-53 (D. Md. 1997).

Apart from the substantive reasons to employ them, there are a number of other reasons that interrogatories can be effectively used in litigation of all types. Strategically, interrogatories served early in a case may force the opposing party to divulge facts and theories in support of its claims and/or defenses at the beginning of discovery, which can assist in preparing a successful litigation strategy. In addition, contention interrogatories are one of the only ways to ascertain both the facts supporting a claim and/or defense and the legal theories that the opposing party is pursuing. Moreover, unlike deposition testimony, which occurs at set times, a party has an ongoing obligation to supplement its responses to interrogatories as it learns new or different information. Should...