Counting Interrogatories in the Northern District of California: When Do Subparts Count?

Why It Matters

Miscounting subparts can push a party over the 25‑question cap, leading to motions to compel or sanctions and inflating discovery costs. Understanding the district’s substance‑over‑form test is essential for effective case strategy in federal litigation.

Key Takeaways

• Subparts count as one if logically tied to primary question.
• Separate subjects make subparts count as distinct interrogatories.
• Patent cases show single‑contention subparts treated as one interrogatory.
• Drafting discipline prevents exceeding Rule 33’s 25‑question limit.

Pulse Analysis

Rule 33(a) was adopted to curb discovery abuse by limiting parties to 25 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. The Northern District of California follows the plain language of the rule but interprets "discrete subparts" through a pragmatic lens, focusing on whether the subparts are logically or factually subsumed by the main query. This substance‑driven approach discourages parties from masking multiple lines of inquiry behind alphanumeric labels, ensuring that the discovery process remains efficient and judicial oversight is meaningful.

Case law provides concrete guidance. In Synopsys v. ATopTech, the court treated a set of fact, document, and witness requests tied to a single contention as one interrogatory, emphasizing the unified theory behind the inquiry. Conversely, Collaboration Props. v. Polycom held that interrogatories covering 26 distinct accused products each represented a separate subject, thus counting as 26 interrogatories. The district’s stance diverges from the Central District of California, where courts sometimes count each category—facts, documents, witnesses—as separate subparts, highlighting the importance of jurisdiction‑specific strategy.

For litigants, the practical takeaway is clear: draft interrogatories that target a single, coherent subject. Avoid bundling unrelated questions under the guise of subparts, as courts will likely split them and increase the count. Early case‑management meetings should include a review of interrogatory design to stay within the 25‑question threshold, reducing the risk of motions to compel or sanctions and preserving resources for substantive dispute resolution.