Printable Format60-233. Interrogatories to parties. (a) In general. (1) Availability; timing. A party may serve written interrogatories on the plaintiff after commencement of the action and on any other party with or after service of process on that party.
(2) Scope. An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under subsection (b) of K.S.A. 60-226, and amendments thereto. An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.
(b) Answer and objection. (1) Responding party. The interrogatories must be answered:
(A) By the party to whom they are directed; or
(B) if that party is a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency or other entity, by any officer or agent, who must furnish the information available to the party.
(2) Time to respond. The responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories, except that a defendant may serve answers or objections within 45 days after being served with process. A shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under K.S.A. 60-229, and amendments thereto, or be ordered by the court.
(3) Answering each interrogatory. Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.
(4) Objections. The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.
(5) Signature. The person who makes the answers must sign them, and the attorney who objects must sign any objections.
(c) Use. An answer to an interrogatory may be used to the extent allowed by the rules of evidence.
(d) Option to produce business records. If the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing, compiling, abstracting or summarizing a party's business records, including electronically stored information, and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party may answer by:
(1) Specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could; and
(2) giving the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts or summaries.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-233; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 20, 1972; L. 1986, ch. 215, § 7; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 16; L. 2008, ch. 21, § 3; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 102; July 1.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Depositions and discovery pending action, see 60-226.
Failure to allow discovery, consequences, see 60-237.
Commencement of action, see 60-203.
Service, how made, filing, see 60-205(b), 60-205(d).
Time, computation and extension, see 60-206.
Pretrial conference procedure, see 60-216.
Perpetuation of testimony, see 60-227.
Production of documents, etc., see 60-234.
Physical and mental examinations, see 60-235.
Orders for protection of parties and deponents, see 60-226(c).
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Cited as making K.S.A. 60-230 (b) applicable to interrogatories, "Highlights of the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure (1963)," Spencer A. Gard, 2 W.L.J. 199, 208 (1962).
"Divorce Under the New Code," Dan Hopson, Jr., 33 J.B.A.K. 165, 166 (1964).
"Divorce and Alimony Under the New Code," Dan Hopson, Jr., 12 K.L.R. 27 (1963).
"Discovery as Affected by the Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Rule Under the New Code," Spencer A. Gard, 33 J.B.A.K. 7, 60 (1964).
Use of depositions and interrogatories, David Prager, 33 J.B.A.K. 25, 74, 75, 76, 77 (1964).
District court rules relating to interrogatories discussed, D. Keith Anderson, 6 W.L.J. 113, 122, 124 (1966).
"Reducing Post-Conviction Litigation," Richard H. Seaton, 36 J.B.A.K. 99, 102 (1967).
"Interrogatories Restrained," Roger D. Stanton, 37 J.B.A.K. 7, 8, 9, 59 (1968).
Survey of civil procedure, Spencer A. Gard, 17 K.L.R. 739 (1969).
Interrogatories not expressly provided for in workmen's compensation cases, "Discovery Techniques in Workmen's Compensation: Largely Undiscovered?" Robert Fowks, 42 J.B.A.K. 83, 84 (1973).
Consumer protection in Tenth Judicial District, William P. Coates, Jr., 44 J.B.A.K. 67, 104 (1975).
"Contested Estate Matters After Court Unification," Calvin J. Karlin, 48 J.B.A.K. 97, 101 (1979).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Torts," William Edward Westerbeke, 33 K.L.R. 1, 39 (1984).
"The Fork in the Road: A Practitioner's Guide to the 1997 Changes in the Code of Civil Procedure," J. Nick Badgerow, 66 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 32 (1997).
"The Class action: A device for correcting small injustices on a grand scale," Ryan E. Hodge, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXII, No. 2, 21 (1998).
"The Lawyer's Inferno: A Guide to Navigating Discovery Disputes," Paul W. Rebein and Matthew C. Miller, 69 J.K.B.A. No. 3, 19 (2000).
"The paper trail has gone digital: Discovery in the age of electronic information," Todd N. Thompson, 71 J.K.B.A. No. 3, 16 (2002).
"Comparison of Federal and State Court Practice," David G. Seely, Charles E. Millsap and Ron Campbell, 75 J.K.B.A. No. 4, 28 (2006).
"Cutting the Hedge: Reforming Comparative Fault in Medical Malpractice," John W. Johnson and Edward L. Robinson, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 30, No. 3, 12 (2007).
"ESI Comes to the K.S.A.: Kansas Adopts Federal Civil Procedure Rules on Electronic Discovery," J. Nick Badgerow, 77 J.K.B.A. No. 7, 30 (2008).
"Written Discovery: A Bag of Tools (Part 1)," James R. Howell, 34 J.K.A.J., No. 2, 4 (2010).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Interrogatories served hereunder. Grantham v. City of Topeka, 196 K. 393, 394, 411 P.2d 634.
2. Liability insurance policy limits held not subject to disclosure under statute. Muck, Administratrix v. Claflin, 197 K. 594, 597, 601, 419 P.2d 1017.
3. Answers to interrogatories must be relevant and material in order to be considered by trier of facts. Allen v. Schauf, 202 K. 348, 365, 449 P.2d 1010.
4. Section curtails need for motions to make definite and certain; helpful in narrowing and sharpening issues. Oller v. Kincheloe's, Inc., 235 K. 440, 448, 681 P.2d 630 (1984).
5. Sanctions imposed are not appealable as interlocutory orders; they are immaterial to ultimate resolution of litigation. Reed v. Hess, 239 K. 46, 48, 53, 716 P.2d 555 (1986).
6. Cited; use of interrogatories and subpoena duces tecum by director of taxation (79-3233) after commencement of hearing examined. Kansas Dept. of Revenue v. Coca Cola Co., 240 K. 548, 550, 731 P.2d 273 (1987).
7. Expert witness letters do not satisfy requirements to qualify as answers to written interrogatories. Hare v. Wendler, 263 K. 434, 442, 949 P.2d 1141 (1997).