Chapter 2 - § 2.26 • WRITING RULE 121 LETTERS FOR NON-RESPONSIVE ANSWERS

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 2.26 • WRITING RULE 121 LETTERS FOR NON-RESPONSIVE ANSWERS

Consider the following situation: 33 days ago, the interrogating lawyer, Joan Straightarrow, served a set of basic contention interrogatories. Now, the opposing party has responded with evasive, non-responsive answers. To make the matter worse, even though the interrogatories asked only for facts, witnesses, and documents, Ms. Straightarrow finds herself faced with boilerplate objections such as "work product" or "the question calls for a legal conclusion." Under C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-12(5) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a), Ms. Straightarrow must confer with opposing counsel in an effort to resolve the dispute before filing a motion to compel discovery. While such conference may occur either by writing or orally, it may be helpful to send a written letter that reflects the perceived deficiencies to make sure the issues are properly framed:

Dear Mr. Lawyer:
I am writing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-12, concerning several of Tom Brown's answers to interrogatories. The answers to Interrogatories 12 through 19 are non-responsive, and I am demanding supplemental responses by July 17.
Interrogatories 12 through 19 are basic contention interrogatories and were 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, his answers refuse to say what it is that he is contending in the lawsuit, asserting instead that the matters in question are "for expert opinion." Each answer goes on to say he 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 attorneys, any investigators who have been employed on his behalf, and any other agents or representatives he may have — whether the information is personally known to him or not. Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136, 140 (W.D. Okla. 1977); Wycoff v. Nichols, 32 F.R.D. 370, 371-72 (W.D. Mo. 1963). See also General Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1210 (8th Cir. 1973).
When answering interrogatories, a party is charged with knowledge of what his agents know and what is in records available to him. Thus, the responding party must

...