But these forms seem to confuse the hell out of us licensed Juris Doctor holding folk.

First, some people maintain that these Interrogatories are “objection proof.” I have received more than a few “meet and confer” letters where my objections to Form Interrogatories were scoffed at in such a manner.Let me just set up a few reductio ad absurdum examples: if they’re objection proof does that mean that they compel the disclosure of attorney-client privileged information? There is no exception in the Discovery Act exempting these Form Interrogatories from the requirement that they be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, either.  So, don’t ask me if my client is a corporation, partnership, LLC, or unincorporated association if you know you’re suing a natural person.

Second, while I would say that it’s a tough case to make that you the Form Interrogatories are objectionable as to form, it’s at least possible that in certain cases they might be. I take a dim view of that, though. I’ve never seen such a case, but I’ve seen pages of boilerplate objections to Form Interrogatories on form bases. “Compound” is my favorite. (wtf?)

Third, please don’t send me Form Interrogatories (General) and Form Interrogatories (Employment) and check boxes that ask for identical information and expect me to respond twice. You’re entitled to the information–you’re not entitled to it with whipped cream and a cherry on top. True there are some that look deceptively similar that actually do ask for different information, but many are in fact identical.

I understand the concept of zealous representation. I understand that that requires, at least to some, that discovery games be played. But really, the definition of zealous doesn’t include stupid.

The use of the Judicial Council Forms should be abolished in Unlimited Civil cases, where they have become some kind of stupid potion, and a vehicle for abuse.  Or, at the very least, they should count against the limit of 35.

Share it:

Hide Sites