• Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 668,997 hits
  • Categories

Special interrogatories in unlawful detainer (eviction) in California

Special interrogatories in an unlawful detainer (eviction) case in California are the topic of this blog post.

Using special interrogatories in an eviction case in California is an excellent way to request that the landlord state in details the facts, witnesses and documents on which the contentions of the landlord are based. If you want my personal opinion you should seriously consider propounding special interrogatories in many eviction cases in California, particularly evictions after a foreclosure sale in California.

In my personal opinion the use of special interrogatories in most eviction cases in California is overlooked by many defendants or their attorneys as they are under the misguided by mistaken impression that the official Judicial Council Form Interrogatories designed for use in evictions cover “almost everything.”

I do agree that the official Judicial Council Form Interrogatories for a California eviction are quite detailed but the plain and simple fact is that they do not cover certain topics such as are commonly found in evictions after a foreclosure sale in California or a complicated commercial eviction case.

The California statutes that govern special interrogatories are found in Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.010, et seq.

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.010 states that, “(a) Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapters 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010) and 3 (commencing with Section 2017.710), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath. (b) An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”

California law states that a defendant in an eviction may propound special interrogatories at any time, however a plaintiff may not do so until at least five (5) days have passed since service of the summons on the defendant, or the general appearance by the defendant, whichever occurs first. See Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.020(c).

I do want to stress now that there are some very important statutory restrictions that must be adhered to in drafting special interrogatories in California which I will discuss below.

One of the most important statutory restrictions in California is the numerical limit of thirty five (35) on the number of special interrogatories. However if a supporting declaration stating that any additional interrogatories are warranted due to the complexity of the case and other certain factors is attached, any party may propound more additional special interrogatories. See Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.030 and 2030.050.

Another important statutory restriction on special interrogatories in California are the restrictions on format. For example in California no specially prepared interrogatory can contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive or disjunctive question. See Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060. This means that a special interrogatory cannot contain part a, b, c, etc., nor can it contain a question with more than one part, and it cannot contain the word “and” which is conjunctive, it also cannot contain the word “or” which is disjunctive. Although many special interrogatories do violate these format rules I need to warn you that if you do use that type of format you run the risk of the responding party interposing objections to the interrogatories on those grounds.

While I will admit that a deposition is a vital tool they also have their limitations such as the fact that you cannot ask someone in a deposition to state all facts, list all witnesses and identify all documents that support or pertain to any particular contention in that party’s pleadings, although that information is discoverable when sought by written interrogatory. Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1257 (emphasis added).

And the law is well settled in California that the scope of discovery is very broad. Any doubts will be applied liberally in favor of discovery.

These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790, and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 385, (“although fishing may be improper or abused in some cases, that “is not of itself an indictment of the fishing expedition per se”.)

Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a portion of sample special interrogatories which is 17 pages and includes brief instructions, sample interrogatories, declaration for additional discovery and proof of service by mail sold by the author can see below.


For more information on a California eviction document collection containing over 30 sample documents including sample special interrogatories sold by the author at a huge discount click the link shown below.


The author of this log post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

 You can view sample legal document packages for sale at: http://legaldocspro.net


Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.


What is your opinion?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: