DQ Chapter 10: Propounding Interrogatories

Describe the major advantages and disadvantages of propounding Interrogatories as a means of conducting Discovery. Next, compare propounding Interrogatories to a party versus taking that party's deposition. In your opinion which discovery tool is the most effective?

A) The major advantages of propounding interrogatories are:

- Lock in the opponent's or the witness' version of facts: To obtain their testimony under oath to discredit their testimony if they try to change their story at trial

-Preserve evidence: If a particular party is unavailable to testify at trial due to matters like death or illness which is often especially important with sick or elderly witnesses

- To discover the strengths and uncover the weaknesses in one's own case so that adequate preparations can be done for settlement negotiations or trial.

The major disadvantages of propounding interrogatories are:

- Often, Interrogatories could lead to discovery disputes, especially if the opposing party hires a lawyer or simply does not want to answer any questions. If one is not armed with the legal knowledge to resolve disputes, one may never get adequate responses from the opponent.

- Interrogatories have to follow a specified format: There are certain limits placed on the kinds of questions that can be asked and the number of interrogatories that can be served to the opposing party. If you are representing yourself, you will need to do some research to ensure your questions are within the bounds of the law and get to the heart of facts you need to prove the claims or defenses.

- If one is representing himself, the opposing attorney may try to take advantage of your lack of discovery know-how in order to drag the discovery process for as long as possible. This might slow the progress and may require you to spend an additional amount of time and effort to counter your opponent's stalling tactics.

- One may get more substantial responses to the questions, along with insights into the testimony of the witnesses and their credibility by doing an oral deposition rather than propounding interrogatories.

B) Interrogatories are a part of the discovery process before the trial. In order to interrogate a witness, the lawyer would send a questionnaire to him/her. The other person is required to complete and return that form within a certain period of time. Interrogatories are considered to be conducted under oath. Any information provided on it is seriously reviewed by the court and the lawyers involved in the case. Your lawyer could ask any question that he/ she wants on the form. But legally, the other party is not required to answer every question that is asked. His/her lawyer can refuse to answer a particular question. In an event that the other party refuses to answer any question, your lawyer could go to court and ask that he/ she be compelled to reply. The questions which are covered on the questionnaire could include everything from personal information to questions regarding the evidence which the other party is planning to use in the case.

Whereas although depositions are similar to interrogatories in that both sides are allowed to ask questions of possible witnesses and anyone else that is related to the case, still there is a big difference. Depositions are completed in person and under oath. At the beginning of a deposition, the person who is being deposed is given an oath. Usually, a court reporter is a person who administers it. Every word of the testimony given would be noted by the reporter. Depositions are considered more intense than interrogatories. Whereas an interrogatory provides the option of answering questions without any real pressure, a deposition could be a stressful matter. During depositions, the other party's lawyer could ask you questions about the incident. He/ she would be looking for any inconsistency in your story. The lawyer can also attempt to anger or even trick you during the deposition.