BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack
BarbriPdBannerMessage

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

    Intermediate

  • work Practice Area

    Class Action and Other Litigation

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Thursday, May 15, 2025

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

$297.00

This course is $0 with these passes:

CLE
ALL

This CLE will discuss how to effectively use contention interrogatories to understand the factual basis and theories of opposing parties' claims and defenses. The panel will cover the difference between permissible and impermissible contention interrogatories, strategy, and best practices both when propounding them and responding or objecting to them, and then offer useful authority when seeking to compel responses or when raising objections. The panel will also address unique problems that arise when contention interrogatories ask about expert issues or opinions.

Faculty

Steven Baicker-McKee
Joseph A. Katarincic Chair of Legal Process and Civil Procedure and Associate Professor of Law
Duquesne University
Stephen E. Fox
Partner
Sheppard Mullin, LLP

Mr. Fox has spent more than 25 years in boardrooms and courtrooms acting as a trusted advisor and litigation advocate for clients – from Fortune 500 corporations to entrepreneurs – in complicated and often high-profile business and employment disputes. His advice/counseling and trial practice is focused on complex business and employment litigation. In the area of labor and employment law, clients look to Mr. Fox for proactive and practical recommendations to avoid litigation. But, when disagreements or disputes end up in the courtroom or in arbitration, he is a vigorous advocate, successfully trying cases in a myriad of areas, including non-competition violations; trade secret theft; executive departures; wage and hour compliance and collective actions; corporate downsizing; leaves of absence (ADA and FMLA); sexual harassment investigations; and compliance with federal/state anti-discrimination and retaliation statutes. Mr. Fox’s ability to synthesize complex facts and arguments into understandable and memorable pieces of information makes him a compelling courtroom advocate, as well as a frequent resource to print, broadcast and radio media.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(2) provides that a interrogatory is "not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact." Contention interrogatories may: ask a party to identify or clarify its contentions; ask a party to state all the facts or documents on which a specific contention in a pleading is based; assert a position and ask about how the law applies to facts; or seek the legal basis for a particular contention. Depending on how and when these requests are made, they may or may not be objectionable.

There are both strategic and practical aspects of drafting contention interrogatories. Proponents should anticipate objections and tailor requests to improve the likelihood of obtaining the desired information. A party is not obligated to perform legal research for its opponents. Contention interrogatories can be effective in ferreting out evidence (or the lack of) about essential elements of claims or defenses.

Respondents often argue that contention interrogatories are attempts to discover opposing counsel's mental impressions, legal theories, and conclusions. Courts are required to balance the parties' discovery obligations with the recognition and protection of work product. While counsel is often wary of revealing weaknesses in the case, a precisely worded, narrowly focused contention interrogatory may obtain important concessions.

Listen as this panel of experienced litigators discusses contention interrogatories and how the responses to them can reveal and help inform case strategy, how best to use contention interrogatories, and when and how to object to them.

Outline

  1. Federal Rule 33(a)(2)
  2. Pros and cons: comparison with requests for admissions and depositions
  3. Timing and sequencing with depositions and other discovery
  4. Special considerations in cases involving experts
  5. Best drafting conventions or practices
  6. Responses and objections
    1. Contention interrogatories and work product
    2. Contention interrogatories and Rule 11
    3. Reasonable particularity
    4. Proportionality
  7. Useful authorities
    1. Examples of impermissible contention interrogatories
    2. Examples of permissible contention interrogatories

Benefits

The panel will discuss these and other key issues:

  • What are good and effective topics for contention interrogatories?
  • Should contention interrogatories be served before or after deposing the opposing parties?
  • Must parties respond to contention interrogatories at the time they are propounded or may they defer their response until a later stage of the litigation?
  • What are effective forms of objections to contention interrogatories?