Catanese

Defendant Charles A. Catanese seeks a writ of mandate directing the superior court to set aside its order that Catanese provide further answers to interrogatories propounded by plaintiff Christine Ray. The writ is granted.

Factual and Procedural Background

After plaintiff Ray was deposed for eight days, Ray propounded these interrogatories:

Catanese objected and answered only to a limited extent. Ray moved to compel full and complete answers. The motion was granted and this petition for writ of mandate followed.

Discussion

1. The issues raised.

Ray contends that the interrogatories are contention interrogatories permitted by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030, subdivision (c)(6). Catanese responds that, as a consequence of legislative response to past discovery abuse, section 2030(c)(5) now requires that each interrogatory be “full and complete in and of itself,” and that these interrogatories fail that test. Catanese further contends that Ray’s interrogatories, as a result of being not self-contained, violate the “rule of 35” set forth in section 2030(c)(1).

Also raised by Catanese is the issue of undue burden. Assuming an average of 300 questions and answers…