An interrogatory otherwise proper is not necessarily objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the court may order that such an interrogatory need not be answered until after designated discovery has been completed or until a pre-trial conference or other later time.
Miss. R. Civ. P. 33
Advisory Committee Historical Note
Effective April 13, 2000, Rule 33 was amended to require parties to produce all nonobjectionable information and to clearly state the ground for objection to each interrogatory. 753-754 So. 2d XVII (West Miss.Cas. 2000 ).
Advisory Committee Notes
The thirty interrogatories permitted as a matter of right are to be computed by counting each distinct question as one of the thirty, even if labeled a sub-part, subsection, threshold question, or the like. In areas well suited to non-abusive exploration by interrogatory, such as inquiries into the names and locations of witnesses, or the existence, location, and custodians of documents or physical evidence, greater leniency may be appropriate in construing several questions as one interrogatory.
Rule 33(b)(4) requires that the grounds for any objection be stated with specificity. "'General objections' applicable to each and every interrogatory.are clearly outside the bounds of this rule." See Ford Motor Co. v. Tennin, 960 So. 2d 379 (Miss. 2007). If an interrogatory is only partially objectionable, the responding party shall clearly indicate the extent to which the interrogatory is objectionable and the basis for the partial objection. The responding party must also fully respond to the extent the interrogatory is not objectionable. If, for example, an interrogatory seeking information about 30 facilities is deemed objectionable, but an interrogatory seeking information about 10 facilities would not have been objectionable, the interrogatory should be answered with respect to the 10 facilities, and the grounds for the objection to providing the information with respect to the remaining facilities should be stated specifically.
Advisory Committee Historical Note
Effective October 11, 2021, Rule 33(d) was amended to require a party who chooses to respond to an interrogatory by producing business records to specify the records from which each response may be ascertained in sufficient detail so that the requesting party may locate and identify the records as readily as the responding party could.
.