Contention Interrogatories: Can You Delay Answers?

Legal content overseen by Nathan Walter, Esq., attorney licensed in California (State Bar No. 313299).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(2) lets a court defer an answer to contention interrogatories until designated discovery is complete, a pretrial conference, or another time. It does not give the responding party an automatic extension, and the 30-day response period in Rule 33(b)(2) still applies unless a stipulation or court order changes it.

Defense teams face this question when an interrogatory asks for the facts behind an affirmative defense before witness interviews are finished.

This guide separates four options: answer with the facts available now, object with specificity, obtain an authorized timing change, and correct the response later. For general background, see our guide to interrogatories.

What are contention interrogatories in federal court?

Contention interrogatories ask a party to explain a position about the facts or about how law applies to those facts, such as the factual basis for a claim or affirmative defense. 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. Its scope remains tied to Rule 26(b)(1).

Compare two questions the propounding party (the party serving the questions) might send. “Who attended the March 3 meeting?” seeks identities. “State the facts supporting your contention that the employee was terminated for attendance violations” connects facts to the responding party’s position.

That connection is what makes the request a contention interrogatory. Rule 33(a)(2) addresses fact and the application of law to fact, not abstract legal questions unrelated to the case’s facts. Rule 26(b)(1) also limits discovery to nonprivileged matter relevant to a party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. For the drafting side, see drafting interrogatories.

Can you delay answers until discovery is complete?

Not automatically. Rule 33(a)(2) gives the court discretion to order that an interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, until a pretrial conference, or until some other time. Unless the response period has been validly changed, Rule 33(b)(2) requires answers and any objections within 30 days after service.

“Discovery is ongoing” does not by itself create a new due date. Treat an objection, a stipulation changing the time, and a court order deferring the answer as three separate things.

Rule 29 begins “Unless the court orders otherwise” and allows parties to stipulate to modify discovery procedures. Under that rule, a stipulation extending the time for any form of discovery must have court approval if it would interfere with the time set for completing discovery, for hearing a motion, or for trial.

A request for more time does not itself extend the deadline. Before relying on an agreement, check the scheduling order and any local rules or standing orders for your court.

What does an authorized timing change need to identify?

As a workflow suggestion rather than a rule requirement, a request or stipulation is easier to evaluate when it names the affected interrogatory numbers and the proposed response date. It should also say what discovery remains (such as a scheduled deposition) and whether the change conflicts with any scheduled date. Rules 29 and 33 do not prescribe a form for this request or stipulation, and Rule 33(a)(2) leaves deferral to the court’s discretion.

What deadlines and limits apply to contention interrogatories?

Contention interrogatories count toward the default limit of 25 written interrogatories to another party in Rule 33(a)(1), including all discrete subparts. Rule 33(b)(2) supplies the ordinary 30-day response period. Rule 26(e)(1) governs later correction or supplementation when its conditions are met.

*Permitted stipulations or court orders may change the response period, and the numerical limit can be changed as Rule 33(a)(1) allows. This is a baseline, not a case-specific due-date calculation.

Rule 33(a)(1) includes all discrete subparts in the count but does not define a test for deciding which subparts are discrete. This guide does not supply a counting formula for a particular compound request.

How do you answer when the investigation is still underway?

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 defense team can organize the facts available to the party for that answer. Rule 26(e)(1) addresses later material corrections or additions under its stated conditions.

The four steps below are workflow suggestions, not additional procedural mandates.

1. Identify the particular contention

Match the request to the pleaded position. Answer the question asked rather than substituting the entire pleading for an answer.

2. Collect the facts available to the party

Review relevant records and obtain client input. For a corporation, partnership, association, or governmental agency, Rule 33(b)(1)(B) requires an officer or agent to furnish the information available to the party, not merely personal recollection.

3. Separate the answer from specific objections

Answer each interrogatory, to the extent it is not objected to, separately and fully in writing under oath, as Rule 33(b)(3) requires. Identify the factual support without disclosing protected communications; the attorney makes the privilege and scope decisions.

4. Review, sign, and track needed updates

Under Rule 33(b)(5), the person who makes the answers signs them and the attorney who objects signs the objections. Keep a list of facts still being gathered so that any later correction under Rule 26(e)(1) can be made promptly.

Worked examples

The following examples are invented and illustrate response structure, not language suitable for every case. See also interrogatory examples.

Interrogatory No. 4: State all facts supporting your contention that Plaintiff was terminated for attendance violations.

That answer gives dated events, a decision-maker, and a record. It does not claim that those facts establish a substantive defense.

Compare a response that says only “Premature; discovery continues; will supplement.” It supplies neither facts nor an authorized timing change. Nothing in Rule 33 treats that wording as a stay of the response obligation.

The second example concerns timing. If a deposition is scheduled for next month, counsel might propose a specific agreed response date for one interrogatory after that deposition. A proposal is not an extension, and Rule 29(b) approval may still be required.

Which objections can apply without avoiding the question?

Rule 33(b)(4) requires the grounds for objecting to be stated with specificity, and Rule 33(a)(2) bars an objection based only on the request seeking an opinion or contention relating to fact or the application of law to fact. The relevance, nonprivilege, and proportionality limits of Rule 26(b)(1) still apply. An objection must therefore address the actual request and the circumstances.

Keep three kinds of objection separate:

• A scope objection says the request is outside Rule 26(b)(1).
• A burden objection should rest on facts about the burden rather than a label.
• A protection claim must meet Rule 26(b)(5)(A), which requires the party to expressly make the claim and to describe what is withheld so other parties can assess it without revealing protected information.

It is not accurate to say all factual bases are privileged, or that every “all facts” request is invalid. Under Rule 33(b)(4), any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure. See also objections to interrogatories.

Can you answer only by referring to documents?

Under Rule 33(d), the answer must be determinable from the responding party’s business records, including electronically stored information, and the burden of deriving or ascertaining it must be substantially the same for either party. The responding party must specify the records in enough detail for the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could, and give a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit them and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries. Whether this option fits a particular contention interrogatory depends on the request and satisfaction of those conditions.

When must you update an answer, and what if it is incomplete?

Under Rule 26(e)(1)(A), a party must timely supplement or correct an interrogatory response when 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. For a motion to compel, Rule 37(a)(4) treats an evasive or incomplete answer as a failure to answer. Rule 37(c)(1) separately addresses failures to disclose or supplement.

Rule 26(e)(1)(B) also requires supplementation as ordered by the court. The rule sets no universal number of days for an update, and it does not promise unrestricted amendment or automatic permission to introduce new material.

A motion to compel must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer to obtain the discovery without court action under Rule 37(a)(1). Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(iii) covers a party’s failure to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33.

Under Rule 37(c)(1), a party that fails to supplement as Rule 26(e) requires is not allowed to use the information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless. In addition to or instead of that sanction, the court may, on motion and after giving an opportunity to be heard, order payment of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, or impose other appropriate sanctions.

After proper service of interrogatories, a total failure to serve answers or objections may lead to sanctions on motion under Rule 37(d)(1)(A)(ii). Such a motion requires certification of good-faith conferral or attempted conferral under Rule 37(d)(1)(B); a prior order compelling an answer is not a prerequisite under this provision.

Do the same contention-interrogatory rules apply in state court?

This guide addresses Federal Rule 33, not state-court discovery procedure. A state-court response requires checking that state’s governing rules rather than carrying over this guide’s federal limits, deadlines, or deferral language.

Our separate guide on California interrogatory responses is related reading for that jurisdiction only.

How can Briefpoint help draft contention-interrogatory responses?

Briefpoint drafts interrogatory responses and objections in editable Microsoft Word output for attorney review. Client Bridge sends clients plain-language questions through a secure link so they can answer and upload documents for attorney review. Attorneys retain responsibility for the factual content, the objections, and the final response.

For defense firms, Client Bridge can support the fact-gathering step described above. See discovery workflows for defense firms and interrogatory response drafting.

The available features also include Supplemental Responses. For this workflow, use Client Bridge to gather client answers and documents for attorney review, then keep review of factual content and objections with the attorney. Briefpoint’s editable Word output is a draft for review, not a determination that an answer may be delayed.

Book a demo to see how Briefpoint supports discovery drafting for attorney review.

See Briefpoint’s discovery demo:

FAQs about contention interrogatories: what else should you know?

In federal court, contention interrogatories ordinarily require answers and objections within 30 days under Rule 33(b)(2), unless a permitted stipulation or court order changes the period. Court-authorized deferral under Rule 33(a)(2) and conditional supplementation under Rule 26(e)(1) are separate from that default response obligation.

Can contention interrogatories be served before discovery is complete?

Yes. Federal Rule 33(a)(2) does not restrict contention interrogatories to the end of discovery, although Rule 26(d)(1) generally bars discovery before the required discovery conference unless an exception applies. The court may defer an answer until designated discovery is complete, a pretrial conference, or another time. That discretion is not an automatic extension for the responding party.

How long do you have to answer contention interrogatories?

Federal Rule 33(b)(2) ordinarily gives the responding party 30 days after service to serve answers and any objections. A permitted stipulation or court order can change that period. Under Rule 29(b), a stipulation extending discovery time requires court approval if it would interfere with the time set for completing discovery, hearing a motion, or trial.

Can you object that a contention interrogatory asks for a legal conclusion?

Not merely because it requests an opinion or contention relating to fact or the application of law to fact; Federal Rule 33(a)(2) protects those questions from that objection alone. Other grounds may apply under Rule 26(b), and Rule 33(b)(4) requires specificity. An objection must identify its grounds rather than rely only on the label “legal conclusion.”

Do contention interrogatories count toward the 25-interrogatory limit?

Yes. Federal Rule 33(a)(1) allows no more than 25 written interrogatories to another party, including all discrete subparts, unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court. It creates no separate allowance for contention questions. The number of discrete subparts in a particular request is a separate legal question; numbering a compound request as one item does not resolve it.

Do you have to supplement contention-interrogatory answers?

Yes, when Federal Rule 26(e)(1) requires it. A party must timely correct or supplement a materially incomplete or incorrect response if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties in discovery or in writing. A court may also order supplementation. The rule does not provide a universal fixed number of days for every update.

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.