Fed.R. Civ. Pro. 33(a)(1): How Do You Count Interrogatory Sub-parts?

Often, a party will refuse to answer Interrogatories by claiming that the Interrogatories served exceed the federal limit (25 interrogatories) or a state limit ( generally between 25 and 30).  The Rules count " discrete sub-parts" as interrogatories, i.e: "Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts" FRCP 33(a)(1).


How does one determine if a clause, phrase or adjective is a "discrete subpart" that counts as an additional interrogatory?  Most Courts follow the "related question" test.  If the clause, phrase, or adjective is logically and factually related to the overall interrogatory then it is not "discrete" and does not count as a separate interrogatory:

 

"District courts in the Eleventh Circuit, like most district courts in other circuits, have adopted and applied 'the "related question" test to determine whether the subparts are discrete, asking whether the particular subparts are "logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.'" The Mitchell Company, Inc. v. Campus, No. CA 07-0177-KD-C, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47505, 2008 WL 2468564, at *14 (S.D. Ala. June 16, 2008) (quoting Forum Architects, LLC v. Candela, No. 1:07CV190-SPM/AK, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4705, 2008 WL 217119, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2008)); see also Powell v. The Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 07-80435-Civ, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49144, 2008 WL 2473748, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 16, 2008) (Hopkins, M.J.) ("Courts within the jurisdiction of the Eleventh Circuit have recently followed what is known as the 'related question test' to determine whether a subpart in an interrogatory should be considered discrete."). "If the subparts are subsumed and necessarily related to the primary question, then the subpart is not 'discrete' within the meaning of Rule 33(a)." Oliver v. City of Orlando, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80552 at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2007).”

Perez v. Aircom Mgmt. Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136140, *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2012) (emphasis added)[1]

 

            Indeed, the  “related question” test is followed by most courts, nationwide:

 

“[M]ost courts have followed what is sometimes referred to as the "related question" approach. In an effort to give some specificity to the inquiry, the test applied under the "related question" approach is generally stated as follows: subparts that are logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question" should not be treated as separate interrogatories. Kendall v. GES Exposition Servs., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 684, 686 (D. Nev. 1997) (quoting Ginn v. Gemini Inc., 137 F.R.D. 320, 322 (D. Nev. 1991)); see also Gilmore v. Lockard, No. 1:12-cv-925, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118059, 2015 WL 5173170, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2015); In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-md-2420, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45976, 2015 WL 1221924, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2015); Klein v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 7:03-cv-102, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95482, 2014 WL 3408355, at *6 (N.D. Tex. July 14, 2014); Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, No. 10-cv-940, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94732, 2014 WL 3490356, at *4 (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2014); Perez v. Aircom Mgmt. Corp., No. 12-60322, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136140, 2012 WL 6811079, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2012); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Guardian Bldg. Prods., Inc., No. 08-C-828, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50108, 2011 WL 1527025, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 20, 2011); Calderon v. Reederei Claus-Peter Offen GmbH & Co., No. 07-61022, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76323, 2008 WL 4194810, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2008); State Farm Mut., Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pain & Injury Rehabilitation Clinic, Inc., No. 07-cv-15129, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50507, 2008 WL 2605206, at *2 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2008); Madison v. Nesmith, No. 9:06-cv-1488, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16130, 2008 WL 619171, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2008); Williams v. Taser Int'l, Inc., No. 1:06-cv-51, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40280, 2007 WL 1630875, at *2 (N.D. Ga. June 4, 2007); Trevino v. ACB Am., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 612.,614  (N.D. Cal. 2006); Safeco of Am. v. Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63199, *7-8 (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2016)(emphasis added)

 

In sum, Courts around the country follow the “related question” test.