Rule 33(d) Interrogatory Response: Examples and Steps
Rule 33(d) Interrogatory Response: Examples and Steps
Legal content overseen by Nathan Walter, Esq., attorney licensed in California (State Bar No. 313299).
An interrogatory asks for a number your finance, HR or IT systems already hold, and the question is whether you can point to the records instead of writing out the answer.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), a Rule 33(d) interrogatory response is allowed only if the answer can be determined from your business records, the burden of deriving it is substantially the same for both sides, and you specify the records and give access to them.
This guide covers civil cases in U.S. district courts and works through three examples with the arithmetic. For the broader rules, see federal interrogatories: rules and answers.
What is a Rule 33(d) interrogatory response?
Rule 33(d) lets a responding party answer by specifying business records. It applies if the answer “may be determined by examining, auditing, compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party’s business records (including electronically stored information),” or ESI, and the burden of deriving it “will be substantially the same for either party” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d)).
A narrative answer that mentions supporting documents is still a narrative answer. An interrogatory asking which documents exist seeks identifying information, to the extent the request is not objected to. A Rule 33(d) election says the answer is in the records and tells the other side where to find it. It is a way of answering, not an objection. For general samples, see general interrogatory question-and-answer examples.
1. Test whether the records can supply the answer
Check each condition against the specific interrogatory before electing the option.
| Condition | Practical question | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Answer comes from business records | Do the party’s own records contain the information needed? | Rule 33(d) |
| Substantially the same burden | Could the other side derive the answer with comparable effort? | Rule 33(d) |
| Specification of records | Can the reader find the right records as readily as you could? | Rule 33(d)(1) |
| Reasonable opportunity | Can the reader examine, audit and copy or compile? | Rule 33(d)(2) |
Compare the work each side would actually perform
Consider whether the fields are understandable without internal knowledge, whether codes have a key, whether the answer needs records to be joined, whether records are missing and whether the answer depends on knowledge that sits only with your employees. These are practical factors, not legal tests.
Separate factual calculations from explanations
Records can show amounts, dates and counts. They may not show why a company took a position, and if they cannot reveal the explanation requested, the records option does not answer that part.
Rule 33(a)(2) says an interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact. Whether Rule 33(d) fits depends on whether the specified records actually permit the requested answer to be determined.
2. Identify the records and explain usable access
A drafting worksheet helps write the specification for each interrogatory, though Rule 33 does not require any particular form. For each one, record:
- the interrogatory number;
- the file or record series;
- a narrow Bates range or a stable ESI identifier;
- the page, worksheet or field that holds the data;
- the time period;
- how to locate the answer within those records.
Bates numbering assigns a unique identifier to each produced page; see Bates numbering. A native file can instead have a stable document identifier, as in the database example below. For how to keep the underlying files in order, see organizing discovery documents.
Make the document reference specific
Rule 33(d)(1) requires you to specify the records “in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could.” A page range has to correspond to the answer. Adding a large Bates range does not by itself establish that the other side can locate and identify the required records as readily as you could; Rule 33(d)(1) does not prescribe Bates labels.
Make inspection and analysis possible
Rule 33(d)(2) requires “a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries.” Describe the access arrangement truthfully: records said to be supplied should be supplied, and an offer of inspection should be concrete. Usable files and a field explanation can remove practical obstacles, though the rule text does not say a native file or direct database credentials are always required. When otherwise discoverable information is withheld as privileged or protected trial-preparation material, Rule 26(b)(5)(A) requires an express claim and a description that lets other parties assess it without revealing protected information.
3. Work through three records-based answer examples
All names, files, dates and amounts below are invented. They are teaching hypotheticals, not court-approved forms or responses ready for service. Each sample answer is an excerpt that omits the oath, signature, objections and service discussed in section 4.
Monthly invoice totals from a company’s sales records
Northline Manufacturing is asked: “State the total invoiced sales, excluding tax and shipping, to Customer C-104 for each month of January through March 2026.”
The sales register is an ordinary-course business record, supplied as a spreadsheet, NL_Sales_Q1_2026.xlsx, with matching PDF pages NLM000201–NLM000203. The extract:
| Month / invoice | Record location | Net sales |
|---|---|---|
| January / INV-101 | NLM000201 | $1,200 |
| January / INV-102 | NLM000201 | $800 |
| February / INV-201 | NLM000202 | $1,500 |
| February / INV-202 | NLM000202 | $500 |
| March / INV-301 | NLM000203 | $900 |
| March / INV-302 | NLM000203 | $1,100 |
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Defendant specifies its sales-register records for Customer C-104 for January 1 through March 31, 2026, produced as NLM000201–NLM000203 and as NL_Sales_Q1_2026.xlsx in the accompanying electronic production. The worksheet “C-104” contains invoice dates in column B and net sales excluding tax and shipping in column D. January appears on NLM000201, February on NLM000202 and March on NLM000203. The monthly amounts can be derived by adding column D for each month; these records contain the entries needed to answer this interrogatory. Plaintiff has been provided downloadable copies permitting examination, auditing, copying and compilation.
The check: January is $1,200 + $800 = $2,000; February is $1,500 + $500 = $2,000; March is $900 + $1,100 = $2,000.
The hypothetical assumes both parties have the same usable records and neither has an informational or technical advantage in making these sums. Reciting the rule is not proof that the burden is equal, because that inquiry turns on the facts. With six rows, a direct answer would probably be simpler; the small dataset is for teaching, and no dollar or page-count threshold decides whether the option is available.
Service-call counts from a maintenance database
An employer-defendant is asked: “State the number of completed maintenance service calls for Facility 07 in each month from April through June 2026.”
The records are the ordinary-course work-order database, supplied as Facility07_Q2_WorkOrders.csv (stable document ID DEF000410), plus field and code definitions at DEF000411. The fields are WorkOrderID, FacilityID, CompletionDate and Status, where C means completed and X means cancelled. The teaching extract has six work orders, all for Facility 07:
| Work order | Status | Completion date |
|---|---|---|
| WO-41 | C | April 3 |
| WO-42 | C | April 17 |
| WO-51 | C | May 5 |
| WO-52 | X | May 20 |
| WO-61 | C | June 8 |
| WO-62 | C | June 22 |
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Defendant specifies the work-order records in Facility07_Q2_WorkOrders.csv, identified as DEF000410, and the field and status-code definitions at DEF000411, supplied with this response. To derive the requested counts, select FacilityID 07, Status C and CompletionDate from April 1 through June 30, 2026, and count distinct WorkOrderID values by completion month. The supplied records contain the information needed for those counts. The downloadable CSV and definitions permit examination, auditing, copying and compilation.
The counts: April has 2 (WO-41 and WO-42), May has 1 (WO-51), and June has 2 (WO-61 and WO-62). WO-52 is cancelled, so it is not counted.
This hypothetical assumes both sides can use the same ordinary tools and definitions. With a screenshot of numeric codes and no key, the recipient may be unable to derive the answer with substantially the same burden. Supplying definitions and usable data addresses practical obstacles but is not a legal safe harbor. DEF000410 identifies a whole native file, so it is a stable identifier and not a page-level Bates citation.
A narrative explanation plus a limited records election
A corporate customer defending a contract action is asked to explain why it disputed two invoice line items and to state the amounts it paid against them. The combined request is an illustration, not a view on whether it counts as one interrogatory under Rule 33(a)(1).
The records are the supplier invoice (DEF000501), which lists two units; the receiving record (DEF000502), which shows one unit received; and correspondence (DEF000503) recording the company’s communicated position. The payment register, an ordinary-course record, is supplied in a usable file with printable pages DEF000510–DEF000511 and shows $600 paid against INV-71 and $400 against INV-72.
Defendant disputed the second-unit charge on INV-71 because its receiving record recorded delivery of one unit rather than the two billed. Defendant disputed the duplicate shipping line on INV-72 because the same shipment was charged twice. These are Defendant’s reasons for disputing those charges. For the amounts paid against those invoice items, Defendant invokes Rule 33(d) and specifies its payment-register entries at DEF000510–DEF000511, also supplied in Payments_INV71_INV72.xlsx, worksheet “Payments,” columns A (invoice), B (line item) and D (amount paid). The amount paid against each disputed item can be determined by totaling column D for its invoice and line-item identifier. The supplied copies are available for examination, auditing, copying and compilation.
The check: the payment register totals $600 for INV-71 and $400 for INV-72.
The narrative facts are assumptions supported by the hypothetical records and client information. A response reading only “see DEF000501–DEF000511” would leave the reader to determine which records explain each dispute; the narrative identifies those reasons directly. Adding the narrative does not validate the records portion, which still needs substantially the same burden and usable access.
4. Check the response before service
Confirm each part of the response with the right person:
- Records owners in finance, HR or IT confirm that the records are complete and what each field means.
- Counsel checks the election against the exact wording of the interrogatory.
- The person who makes the answers checks the facts and signs.
Rule 33(b)(3) requires each interrogatory, to the extent it is not objected to, to be answered “separately and fully in writing under oath.” A corporate party answers through “any officer or agent, who must furnish the information available to the party” under Rule 33(b)(1)(B), so the answer is not limited to the signer’s memory. Under Rule 33(b)(5), the person who makes the answers signs them, and the attorney who objects signs any objections.
The default response period is 30 days after service; a Rule 29 stipulation or court order may set a different time (Rule 33(b)(2)).
Supplementation is governed by Rule 26(e)(1). A party must supplement or correct a response in a timely manner if it learns the response is materially incomplete or incorrect and the corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during discovery or in writing. It must also supplement as a court orders.
Common mistakes and the limits of this federal guide
Watch for:
- answering “see documents produced” with no further identification;
- referencing material the reader cannot read;
- leaving out the code key that explains the data;
- pointing to records that do not contain the full answer;
- assuming that producing documents is the same as answering;
- treating Rule 33(d) as an objection.
Rule 34(a)(1)(A) covers requests to produce or permit inspection of documents and ESI in a party’s possession, custody or control. That is separate from the Rule 33(d) conditions; see requests for production.
State rules
This guide addresses the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only. State-court procedure is outside its scope; the interrogatories hub links to state guides.
Prepare records-linked responses with Briefpoint
Briefpoint drafts responses and objections to interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admission. The output is editable in Microsoft Word, and attorneys keep final review.
Autodoc finds responsive documents and adds page-level Bates citations, which supports the record-identification work described above. Interrogatory answer drafting helps attorneys build the response around those citations. The attorney still decides whether the records are complete, whether the burden is substantially the same and whether access is reasonable.
Discovery software for in-house teams and discovery software for defense firms cover the corporate legal department and the outside counsel who prepare these answers together.
To see how Briefpoint supports discovery drafting, Book a demo.
Watch the Briefpoint demo:
FAQs About Rule 33(d) Interrogatory Response
Can you answer an interrogatory by referring to business records?
Yes, if Rule 33(d)’s conditions are met. The answer must be determinable from the party’s business records, including ESI, and the burden of deriving it must be substantially the same for either party. The records must be specified and made reasonably available for examination, audit and copying.
Is “see documents produced” a sufficient interrogatory response?
A generic reference does not show the specification Rule 33(d)(1) requires, which is detail sufficient for the other side to locate and identify the records as readily as the responding party could. A reference to an entire production does not address equal burden or access either.
Does a Rule 33(d) response have to list Bates numbers?
Rule 33(d) does not mention Bates numbers. It requires specification in sufficient detail to locate and identify the records. Bates citations are a common way to do that for paper or PDF pages, but a bare range does not guarantee compliance with the rule’s conditions.
Can Rule 33(d) apply to spreadsheets and databases?
Yes. Rule 33(d) expressly covers business records “including electronically stored information,” subject to the same conditions. For a database export, the specification may need to identify the file, fields, filters and code meanings so the other side can derive the answer with substantially the same burden.
Can business records replace an explanation of your contentions?
Only if the records permit the requested answer to be determined. Rule 33(a)(2) protects requests for opinions or contentions relating to fact or the application of law to fact from objection merely on that basis. Rule 33(b)(3) requires a full answer to the extent not objected to; a narrative may be needed, with Rule 33(d) used for separable amounts.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. This website contains links to other third-party websites. Such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser. Readers of this website should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and website authors, contributors, contributing law firms, or committee members and their respective employers.
