Illinois Interrogatories: Rule 213 Answers and Limits

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

Illinois interrogatories in state civil cases are governed by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213.

A party shall not serve more than 30 interrogatories, including sub-parts, on any other party except upon agreement of the parties or leave of court granted upon a showing of good cause, subject to paragraph (j) (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(c)). The party served shall serve a sworn answer or an objection to each interrogatory within 28 days after service (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(d)).

This guide covers Illinois state-court practice under Rules 213, 201 and 183. For federal practice, see our federal interrogatories guide.

What governs Illinois interrogatories?

A party may direct written interrogatories to any other party, and a copy shall be served on all other parties entitled to notice (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(a)). An attorney directing interrogatories has a duty to restrict them to the subject matter of the particular case, to avoid undue detail, and to avoid the imposition of any unnecessary burden or expense on the answering party (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(b)).

Scope comes from Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(b)(1): a party may obtain by discovery full disclosure regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, except as provided in the rules. Discovery requests disproportionate in terms of burden or expense should be avoided (Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(a)).

Requests to admit are a separate method under Rule 201(a), covered in our guide to Illinois requests to admit under Rule 216.

Illinois Interrogatories Deadlines and Extensions at a Glance

The response and updating rules use these time standards:

• Serve a sworn answer or an objection to each interrogatory: Within 28 days after service of the interrogatories on the party to whom they are directed (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(d)).
• Supplement or amend a prior answer or response: Seasonably, whenever new or additional information subsequently becomes known to that party (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(i)).
• Ask the court to extend a time period: The court, for good cause shown on motion after notice to the opposite party, may extend the time, before or after the expiration of the time (Ill. S. Ct. R. 183).

The 1995 Committee Comments to paragraph (d) say the committee raised the time for objections from 15 days to 28 so answering and objecting share one limit.

Rule 183 says the court “may” extend the time, so an extension is discretionary and depends on good cause shown on motion after notice to the opposite party. Its text does not describe an informal request, or a filed motion, as extending the time by itself.

This guide does not calculate calendar due dates.

Count the 30-interrogatory limit, including subparts

Except as provided in subparagraph (j), a party shall not serve more than 30 interrogatories, including sub-parts, on any other party except upon agreement of the parties or leave of court granted upon a showing of good cause (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(c)). A motion for leave must be in writing and shall set forth the proposed interrogatories and the reasons establishing good cause for their use (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(c)).

Rule 213(c) counts “sub-parts” within the 30 but does not define them, so this guide offers no counting formula. Our guide to drafting clear interrogatories covers general drafting practice, not Illinois authority.

Rule 213(j) provides that the Supreme Court, by administrative order, may approve standard forms of interrogatories for different classes of cases (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(j)).

Prepare sworn answers and address objections

Put each interrogatory before its answer

The answering party shall set forth in full each interrogatory being answered immediately preceding the answer, and shall serve a sworn answer or an objection to each interrogatory, with proof of service upon all other parties entitled to notice (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(d)).

A client intake questionnaire is working material. This guide does not supply a verification form for the sworn answer.

Identify the right organizational responder

Sworn answers to interrogatories directed to a public or private corporation, or a partnership or association, shall be made by an officer, partner, or agent, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(d)).

The 1995 Committee Comments say this makes certain that the entity may not avoid answering by disclaiming personal knowledge on the part of the answering official.

Connect an objection to its actual basis

Besides scope under Rule 201(b)(1), an objection may be tied to these Rule 201 provisions:

• Privilege and work product, Rule 201(b)(2): matters privileged against disclosure on the trial are privileged against disclosure through any discovery procedure. Material prepared by or for a party in preparation for trial is subject to discovery only if it does not contain or disclose the theories, mental impressions, or litigation plans of the party’s attorney (Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(b)(2)).
• Express privilege claims, Rule 201(n): a claim of common law or statutory privilege shall be made expressly and supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications or things not produced or disclosed and the exact privilege being claimed (Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(n)).
• Protective orders and proportionality, Rule 201(c)(1) and (c)(3): the court may make a protective order as justice requires, denying, limiting, conditioning, or regulating discovery to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or oppression (Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(c)(1)). In making an order under that section, the court may determine whether the likely burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit, taking into account the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues, and the importance of the requested discovery (Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(c)(3)).

When documents can supply the answer

When the answer to an interrogatory may be obtained from documents in the possession or control of the party on whom it was served, it shall be a sufficient answer to produce those documents responsive to the interrogatory (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(e)). That production shall comply with the requirements of Rule 214 (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(e)), which this guide does not cover.

The 1995 Committee Comments to paragraph (e) say it was amended to require a party who elects to answer by referring to documents to produce the responsive documents as part of the party’s answer.

Briefpoint‘s Autodoc can locate responsive documents and add page-level Bates citations. Whether an answer may be obtained from documents, and whether a production complies with Rule 214, is for the attorney to evaluate.

Match witness disclosures to Rule 213(f)

Upon written interrogatory, a party must furnish the identities and addresses of witnesses who will testify at trial, plus further information that depends on the witness’s category (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(f)).

The additional disclosure depends on the category:

• Lay witness: only fact or lay opinion testimony: The subjects of testimony, giving reasonable notice in light of the limits on the party’s knowledge of the witness (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(f)(1)).
• Independent expert: expert testimony from someone other than the party, its current employee or its retained expert: The subjects and the opinions the party expects to elicit, with the same reasonable-notice standard (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(f)(2)).
• Controlled expert: the party, its current employee or its retained expert giving expert testimony: (i) subject matter; (ii) conclusions and opinions and their bases; (iii) qualifications; (iv) any reports prepared by the witness about the case (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(f)(3)(i)–(iv)).

Lay witnesses and independent experts

For lay witnesses, the 2002 Committee Comments to paragraph (f) say “subjects” means topics rather than a summary, described well enough to give reasonable notice and let the opposing attorney decide whether to depose the witness and on what topics.

For independent experts, the comments say the reasonable-notice standard depends on what the party knows about the witness’s opinions.

Controlled experts

A controlled expert is defined by relationship to the party (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(f)(3)). The comments say “subject matter” means the gist of the testimony on each topic the witness will address, and a party may meet its obligation in part by incorporating prior statements or reports of the witness. A treating clinician is not automatically independent, because the category turns on the relationship and the testimony offered.

Work through a plaintiff-side witness example

The examples below are invented to illustrate the categories. They are not complete, service-ready disclosures.

Suppose a plaintiff was hit at an intersection. For a passerby who saw the collision, a lay-witness answer gives the subjects of testimony (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(f)(1)) and might read:

Assume the plaintiff’s treating orthopedist is giving expert testimony and is not the party, its current employee or its retained expert. An independent-expert answer gives the subjects and the opinions the party expects to elicit (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(f)(2)). The comments say that if neither attorney can speak with a treating doctor, the opinions in the medical records may be all they know, and a brief statement of expected opinions may suffice. If the party knows the doctor will also testify about another doctor’s compliance with the standard of care, the comments call for a more detailed statement.

For a retained accident reconstructionist, the answer covers all four controlled-expert items (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(f)(3)(i)–(iv)).

Track trial use, supplementation and disputes

Direct examination is limited by disclosed information

Information disclosed in answer to a Rule 213(f) interrogatory, or in a discovery deposition, limits the testimony a witness can give on direct examination at trial (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(g)). Upon objection at trial, the burden is on the proponent of the witness to prove the information was provided in one of those two sources (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(g)).

Except upon a showing of good cause, information in an evidence deposition not previously disclosed in a Rule 213(f) answer or a discovery deposition shall not be admissible upon objection at trial (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(g)).

A cross-examining party can elicit information, including opinions, without making disclosure. In actions with multiple parties and multiple representation, it may not elicit undisclosed information on an issue on which its position is aligned with that of the party doing the direct examination (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(g)).

Answers to interrogatories may be used in evidence to the same extent as a discovery deposition (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(h)).

Update answers when new information arrives

A party has a duty to seasonably supplement or amend any prior answer or response whenever new or additional information subsequently becomes known to that party (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(i)). The 1995 Committee Comments say “seasonable” varies by the facts of each case and by the type of case, and neither they nor the rule state a number of days.

A manual review checkpoint when new treatment records arrive is one workflow habit, not a safe harbor under Rule 213(i).

Confer before taking a dispute to court

Any objection to an answer, or to the refusal to answer, shall be heard by the court upon prompt notice and motion of the party propounding (serving) the interrogatory (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(d)).

The parties shall make reasonable attempts to resolve differences over discovery (Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(k)). Every motion with respect to discovery shall incorporate a statement that counsel responsible for trial, after personal consultation and reasonable attempts to resolve differences, have been unable to reach an accord, or that opposing counsel made himself or herself unavailable for personal consultation or was unreasonable in attempts to resolve differences (Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(k)).

The Committee Comments to Rule 201(k) say the consequences of failing to comply with discovery are discussed in Rule 219.

Prepare discovery responses with Briefpoint

Briefpoint drafts responses and objections to interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admission. Output is editable in Microsoft Word, and attorneys keep final review.

Client Bridge sends clients plain-language questions through a secure link so they can answer and upload documents for attorney review. That is one way to collect treatment and work-history facts before an attorney prepares the sworn answers; it does not replace the oath or the attorney’s judgment about what an answer must say.

Autodoc finds responsive documents, adds page-level Bates citations and builds a Bates-numbered production package. An attorney decides whether the Rule 213(e) option fits.

For the updating duty in Rule 213(i), look at Supplemental Responses.

Book a demo to explore Briefpoint.

Watch this Briefpoint video:

FAQs About Illinois Interrogatories

Can Illinois Rule 213 interrogatories be sent to a nonparty?

No. Rule 213(a) authorizes a party to direct written interrogatories to another party. It also requires a copy of the interrogatories to be served on all other parties entitled to notice (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(a)). This guide does not address the procedures for obtaining discovery from nonparties.

Do Illinois interrogatory answers have to be filed with the court?

Generally, no. No discovery may be filed with the clerk of the circuit court except by order of court or when authorized by Supreme Court Rule, and local rules shall not require the filing of discovery. Any party serving discovery shall file a certificate of service of discovery document (Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(m)).

Does a second set of Illinois interrogatories restart the 30-question limit?

No, according to the committee’s explanation of the limit. Rule 213(c) bars more than 30 interrogatories, including sub-parts, on any other party, subject to paragraph (j), agreement of the parties, or leave of court on good cause. The 1995 Committee Comments say the limit covers all interrogatories regardless of when propounded (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(c)).

Can an attorney swear to Rule 213(f) witness-disclosure answers?

Yes for those answers, according to the 2002 Committee Comments to Rule 213(f). They say the answer to the Rule 213(f) interrogatories served on behalf of a party may be sworn to by the party or the party’s attorney. That statement is in the comments, not the rule text, and this guide does not extend it to other answers.

Must testimony disclosed in a discovery deposition be repeated in a Rule 213(f) answer?

Not specifically. Information disclosed in a discovery deposition need not be later specifically identified in a Rule 213(f) answer. Upon objection at trial, the burden is on the proponent of the witness to prove the information was provided in a Rule 213(f) answer or in the discovery deposition (Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(g)). Rule 213(i) states the duty to supplement separately.

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.