This month, I’ve seen three sets of poorly written special interrogatories from different attorneys. These are not inexperienced, first year attorneys, but seasoned family law attorneys with an average of 15 years of experience.

I get it, it’s easy to grab an old draft of special interrogatories and make minimal edits. What I don’t get is how many attorneys seem genuinely unaware of the code sections that govern special interrogatories. So, here’s a short refresher to get everyone on the same page.

No Preface or Preliminary Instructions.  In E.B. White’s introduction to The Elements of Style, he writes of William Strunk’s predilection for repeating rules three times: “Omit needless words! Omit needless words! Omit needless words!” Whenever I receive special interrogatories that include a preface or preliminary instructions, I have a strong urge to shout, “No preface permitted! No preface permitted! No preface permitted!”

Much like William Strunk’s The Elements of Style provides writers with easy-to-follow writing guidelines, the California Code of Civil Procedure provides very clear and concise guidelines to attorneys or paralegals who are drafting special interrogatories.  Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.060(d) specifically states, “no preface or instruction shall be included with a set of interrogatories.” Each of the special interrogatories received by our office included both a preface and instructions. This leaves the responding party in the difficult position of having to object to every special interrogatory because the propounding party failed to abide by the very straightforward guidelines set forth in the CCP while also responding to the deficient requests.

Special Interrogatories Cannot be Used to Request Documents. One set of special interrogatories served on our office included the following specially defined term: “’IDENTIFY’ when referring to a DOCUMENT, means to attach a copy of the DOCUMENT unless you explain why not.”

There’s a lot to unpack. First, it’s questionable if placing specially defined terms at the beginning of your special interrogatories is permitted as CCP §2030.060(d) requires each special interrogatory be “full and complete in and of itself.” Leaving that on the side, special interrogatories cannot be used to compel a party to produce a document.  The proper mechanism to have a party produce a document is an inspection demand.

Finally, the definition as written makes no sense. This was received from an attorney who has been licensed since 1985.

No Crystal Balls. A special interrogatory cannot be used to force the responding party to make a prediction. This gem was from an attorney who has been licensed since 2002: “IDENTIFY ANY and ALL sources of income, which YOU expect to receive, and/or may receive in the future.”

I am bewildered as to how anyone could answer this interrogatory. If I had to answer this for myself, I might reasonably predict that at some point in time I may receive Social Security. Each week I am hopeful I may win Powerball, but I doubt these predictions are what the drafting attorney wants. It’s completely unclear what information the attorney hoped to garner with this special interrogatory, but regardless, this special interrogatory is unanswerable.

Review Your Client’s File. If your client had a prior attorney, or attorneys, spend some time reviewing their entire case file. We received special interrogatories which were labeled as set one, but which were set three. The new set of interrogatories brought his client’s total far over the limit of 35. Granted, this case had been going on for years, but it would have been time well-spent had the attorney reviewed his client’s file before issuing more special interrogatories without the required Declaration of Necessity.

I urge paralegals and attorneys to spend some time reviewing the CCP before issuing their next discovery demand. They’re likely to find that they’ve been making some egregious discovery blunders for some time. I assure you that such a review will be time well spent.

Karin Buckley is the senior paralegal at Van Voorhis and Sosna, LLP, a family law firm in San Francisco, CA. She is a current member of the paralegal section of the Bar Association of San Francisco, as well as the former chair for the section. She lives in Baltimore, MD with her Golden, Jolene and her sassy Oakland born cat, Midge.