§33.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§33.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

(1)General

Verification of a corporation's answers to interrogatories may be by its attorney as agent of the corporation. Am. Linen Supply Co. v. Nursing Home Bldg. Corp., 15 Wn.App. 757, 764,551 P.2d 1038 (1976).

Propounding interrogatories does not waive the right to have testimony excluded under the deadman's statute, RCW 5.60.030, unless the interrogatories are introduced into evidence by a representative of the estate. Diel v. Beekman, 7 Wn.App. 139, 154-55, 499P.2d37, review denied, 81 Wn.2d 1007 (1972) (holding the trial court's ruling that defendant waived the bar of the deadman's statute by propounding interrogatories and erred by admitting plaintiff's wife's testimony concerning transactions with the deceased because plaintiff never waived the protection of the statute), overruled on other grounds by Chaplin v. Sanders, 100 Wn.2d 853, 676P.2d431 (1984).

The trial court has discretion to determine whether a party is entitled to have interrogatories answered, and the trial judge's ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Weber v. Biddle, 72 Wn.2d 22, 29, 431P.2d705 (1967); Senear v. Daily Journal Am., 27 Wn.App. 454, 470, 618P.2d536 (1980), aff'd on other grounds, 97 Wn.2d 148, 641P.2d1180 (1982).

(2)Duty to provide information available to or under control of a party

A party is obligated to respond to an interrogatory based on information that is either available to him or under his control, including information available through his attorney, investigators employed by him or on his behalf, or other agents or representatives. Cont'l III. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Chi. v. Caton, 136 F.R.D. 682,684-85 (D. Kan. 1991).

In responding to interrogatories, information is under a party's control if that party has the right, authority, or ability to obtain the information or documents upon demand from another. Scott v. Arex, Inc., 124 F.R.D. 39, 41 (D. Conn. 1989).

A parent corporation is obligated to obtain information from any subsidiaries it directly controls to properly respond to interrogatories. Brunswick Corp. v. SuzukiMotor Co., 96 F.R.D. 684,686 (E.D. Wis. 1983).

(3)Scope of discoverability

Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can be inquired into under CR 26(b). The only limitation is relevancy to the subject matter involved, subject only to the objection of privilege. The test in determining relevancy of interrogatories is whether the testimony sought may reasonably be expected to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Bushman v. New HollandDiv. of Sperry Rand Corp., 83 Wn.2d 429, 433-34, 518 P.2d 1078 (1974). Under CR 26(b)(1), all information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is discoverable. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the lawsuit. Taylor v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 39 Wn.App. 828, 835-36, 696 P.2d 28, review denied, 103 Wn.2d 1040 (1985) (holding that plaintiff was entitled to a new trial in light of defendant's failure to comply with continuing interrogatories and subpoena duces tecum pertaining to defendant's aircraft fuel modification system by failing to provide information that clearly fell within plaintiff's requests, which were reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence).

(4)Interrogatories requiring research or compilation of data for response

A party will not be allowed to shift the costs of trial preparation to the opposing party. Thus, absent a showing of willfuln ess or other egregious circumstances, if the information requested by plaintiff could be obtained from the records made available by defendants, defendants will not be required to compile information. Webb v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 81 F.R.D. 431, 435-36 (E.D. Pa. 1978) (concluding that defendant was not required to prepare compilations of employment information that had not been previously prepared when defendant made the documents and raw data necessary to make the compilations available to the plaintiff).

(5)Objections

Bare assertions that discovery requested is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, or irrelevant are ordinarily insufficient, standing alone, to bar responses. It is the responding party's burden to clarify and explain how each interrogatory is irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or burdensome. Cont'l III., 136 F.R.D. at 684-85

Interrogatories requesting a party to state each and every fact supporting all claims asserted in the complaint, and to identify every person having knowledge of each fact, and all documents purporting to support the claims, are overly broad and unduly burdensome when no justification is presented for the interrogatories, and essentially required the responding party to provide a running narrative of the entire case. Hilt v. SFC, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186-87 (D. Kan. 1997) (finding that defendant employer's interrogatories to plaintiff in a sexual harassment case were excessive in asking her to state each and every fact supporting all claims, no matter how insignificant or minor, making no distinction between admitted and contested allegations, and to identify each person having knowledge of each fact and all documents purporting to support claims; and thus were overly broad and burdensome, and more likely to cause delay and unreasonable expense of time, energy, and possibly money).

Contention interrogatories that seek identification of every fact and document upon which plaintiff bases a claim are overly broad and unduly burdensome and maybe limited to identification of the material or principal facts and documents supporting the responding party's contentions. Steil v. Humana Kan. City Inc., 197 F.R.D. 445, 446 (D. Kan. 2000) (holding that defendant insurer's contention interrogatories to plaintiff seeking "every fact and document" upon which the plaintiff insured based his contentions were overly broad and unduly burdensome and limiting the scope of the requests to material or principal facts and documents supporting plaintiff's contentions).

Failure to object to interrogatories within the 30-day response period waives any objections. Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming the district court's finding that defendant-appellant failed to support his claim of Fifth Amendment privilege, which was first mentioned 15 months after the interrogatories had been propounded, and long after he knew he was under investigation, had been indicted in state court, and his trial at which he testified on his own behalf, and months after he had been convicted in the state proceeding); Starlight Int'llnc. v. Herlihy, 181 F.R.D. 494,496-97 (D. Kan. 1998) (holdingthat the defendant's excuse that their counsel mistakenly miscalendared the date their responses to discovery requests were due showed nothing beyond carelessness, inadvertence, or mistake by counsel and did not constitute good cause for missing the deadline for interrogatory responses and thus defendant waived any objections).

An objection based on a claim of...