[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael D. Berman.]

Contention interrogatories ask an opponent to state the facts on which it relies to support a specific contention. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(2) as amended in 1970 states: “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.” [emphasis added].

Frequently, the issue is when it is appropriate to propound these interrogatories and when they need to be answered. See Timing of Propounding and Responding to “Contention Interrogatories” (Oct. 8, 2026).

However, in Rain Drop Foundation, Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2026 WL 2936810 (W.D. Ok. Sep. 30, 2026), the court addressed the scope of this useful discovery device. It quoted two contention interrogatories:

Interrogatory No. 14 provides: “If State Farm maintains Plaintiffs failed to comply with the terms of the Policy, please set forth (a) all facts in support thereof; (b) all Persons with supporting knowledge; and (c) all documents and other evidence that may support such contention.” Interrogatory No. 15 states “[i]f State Farm contends Plaintiff failed to mitigate their damages, please set forth (a) the facts that support each contention; (b) all persons with knowledge to support such contention; and (c) all documents and other evidence that may support such contention.”

Id. at *4 (emphasis added).

The Rain Drop Foundation court defined “contention” interrogatories, writing:

Contention interrogatories are interrogatories that seek to clarify the basis for or the scope of an adversary’s claims…. These interrogatories ask another party to indicate what it contends, to state all the facts on which it bases its contentions, to state all evidence on which it bases its contentions, or to explain how the law applies to the facts.

Id. at *5 (cleaned up).

The Rain Drop Foundation court found them to be generally permissible: “Other judges in this district and elsewhere have recognized that certain contention interrogatories are generally viewed as a perfectly permissible form of discovery.” Id. (cleaned up).

However, the Rain Drop Foundation court recognized a limitation: “But contention interrogatories seeking ‘all facts’ supporting allegations of a claim or defense are overly broad and unduly burdensome.” Id. at * 5 (cleaned up; emphasis added). It concluded: “The Court finds Interrogatory Nos. 14-15 are the type of contention interrogatories that are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as they seek an exhaustive rendition of facts and supporting evidence at this stage of the case.” Id.

For related issues, please visit:

• Requests for Documents “Sufficient to Show,” Instead of “Any and All” Documents (Jun.30, 2025);
• Requests for “Any and All” Documents Are Obsolete – Update (Jul. 6, 2024);
• Requests for “Any and All” Documents Are Obsolete (Feb. 4, 2021).

Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.