What are the minimum requirements for interrogatory responses in Florida?

RULE 1.340. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES

(a) Procedure for Use. Without leave of court, any party may serve on any other party written interrogatories to be answered (1) by the party to whom the interrogatories are directed, or (2) if that party is a public or private corporation or partnership or association or governmental agency, by any officer or agent, who must furnish the information available to that party. Interrogatories may be served on the plaintiff after commencement of the action and on any other party with or after service of the process and initial pleading on that party. The interrogatories must not exceed 30, including all subparts, unless the court permits a larger number on motion and notice and for good cause. If the supreme court has approved a form of interrogatories for the type of action, the initial interrogatories on a subject included within must be from the form approved by the court. A party may serve fewer than all of the approved interrogatories within a form. Other interrogatories may be added to the approved forms without leave of court, so long as the total of approved and additional interrogatories does not exceed 30. Each interrogatory must be answered separately and fully in writing under oath unless it is objected to, in which event the grounds for objection must be stated and signed by the attorney making it. The party to whom the interrogatories are directed must serve the answers and any objections within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories, except that a defendant may serve answers or objections within 45 days after service of the process and initial pleading on that defendant. The court may allow a shorter or longer time. The party submitting the interrogatories may move for an order under rule 1.380(a) on any objection to or other failure to answer an interrogatory.

(b) Scope; Use at Trial. Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can be inquired into under rule 1.280(b), and the answers may be used to the extent permitted by the rules of evidence except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. An interrogatory otherwise proper is not objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or calls for a conclusion or asks for information not within the personal knowledge of the party. A party must respond to such an interrogatory by giving the information the party has and the source on which the information is based. Such a qualified answer may not be used as direct evidence for or impeachment against the party giving the answer unless the court finds it otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence. If a party introduces an answer to an interrogatory, any other party may require that party to introduce any other interrogatory and answer that in fairness ought to be considered with it.

(c) Option to Produce Records. When the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the records (including electronically stored information) of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed or from an examination, audit, or inspection of the records or from a compilation, abstract, or summary based on the records and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party to whom it is directed, an answer to the interrogatory specifying the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained and offering to give the party serving the interrogatory a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries is a sufficient answer. An answer must be in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to identify, as readily as can the party interrogated, the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained, or must identify a person or persons representing the interrogated party who will be available to assist the interrogating party in locating and identifying the records at the time they are produced. If the records to be produced consist of electronically stored information, the records must be produced in a form or forms in which they are ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.

RULE 1.380. FAILURE TO MAKE DISCOVERY; SANCTIONS

(a) Motion for Order Compelling Discovery. Upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected, a party may apply for an order compelling discovery as follows:

(1) Appropriate Court. An application for an order to a party may be made to the court in which the action is pending or in accordance with rule 1.310(d). An application for an order to a deponent who is not a party shall be made to the circuit court where the deposition is being taken.

(2) Motion. If a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted under rule 1.310 or 1.320, or a corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under rule 1.310(b)(6) or 1.320(a), or a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under rule 1.340, or if a party in response to a request for inspection submitted under rule 1.350 fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as requested, or if a party in response to a request for examination of a person submitted under rule 1.360(a) objects to the examination, fails to respond that the examination will be permitted as requested, or fails to submit to or to produce a person in that party’s custody or legal control for examination, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer, or a designation or an order compelling inspection, or an order compelling an examination in accordance with the request. The motion must include a certification that the movant, in good faith, has conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court action. When taking a deposition on oral examination, the proponent of the question may complete or adjourn the examination before applying for an order. If the court denies the motion in whole or in part, it may make such protective order as it would have been empowered to make on a motion made pursuant to rule 1.280(c).

(3) Evasive or Incomplete Answer. For purposes of this subdivision an evasive or incomplete answer shall be treated as a failure to answer.

The plaintiff propounded interrogatories to the defendant State Road Department. Included were two interrogatories which are involved in this appeal, namely:

'1. State all facts which give rise to the claim that you have acquired title to the property pursuant to F.S. 337.31.'

Page 316

'5. State whether the State Road Department knew that the plaintiff had reserved for its own use an easement for its railroad tracks over the fifty (50) foot strip of property described in said Exhibit 'A'? * * *'

The Department answered the above interrogatory No. 1 as follows:

'1. Biscayne Boulevard has been under maintenance by the State Road Department for a number of years. Biscayne Boulevard was placed on the Primary State Road system by the Road Board as per Chapter 29965 Laws of Florida 1955. This action became effective July 1, 1956. A maintenance map has been prepared and certified by our Maintenance Engineer and filed in the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. For a great number of years prior to 1955 Biscayne Boulevard has been under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Road Department as more fully appears from my affidavit attached hereto and made a part of this Answer.'

In answer to the above quoted interrogatory No. 5 the answer given by the Department was 'No.' Those answers were made under oath by Clarence E. Davidson, the District Engineer of the State Road Department whose district included Dade County. Appended to the answers to interrogatories was an affidavit made by Davidson which contained an amplification of the facts stated in the answer to interrogatory No. 1.

Thereupon the plaintiff filed objections to the answers and moved that the Department 'be required to make a more full and complete answer to the several interrogatories propounded to it.' The grounds of the motion were that the answers did not appear to be given 'by a person having knowledge of the facts or if the matters contained in the answer were matters of record, who had custody of the records.' The affidavit appended to the answers to interrogatories was objected to because it was not included within the answer, and it was contended the answers contained conclusions of law and conclusions of the person answering. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion and directed the Department 'to make further answer to the interrogatories,' within a time fixed. In compliance with that order further answers to the interrogatories were made under oath by Michael O'Neil, Chairman of the State Road Board. The original answer to interrogatory No. 1 was amplified by the following additional statement:

'We are aware of no deeds or official right of way map which includes the area described in the exhibits attached to the Plaintiff's Complaint in this cause, except the Maintenance Map recorded in the Public Records of Dade County at Plat Book 82 at Page 1--1 and 1--2. Therefore, reliance for acquisition of title pursuant to F.S. 337.31 is based upon said Map and the applicable law, and upon the matters stated and sworn to in Affidavits of Clarence E. Davidson, W. A. Maier, Stanslaus M. Szydlo, W. T. Keiting, Winston Carlton and Arthur E. Darlow, which said Affidavits have been filed in this cause.'

The additional answer given with reference to interrogatory No. 5 was as follows:

'We find no evidence in the records of the Department to indicate that the Department knew that the Plaintiff reserved an easement for railroad tracks over any property which is the subject of this case. The answer, therefore, remains 'No'.'

The plaintiff again filed objection to the answers to interrogatories as thus supplemented, and moved that the Department 'be required to make a more full and complete answer to the interrogatories.' The grounds stated in that motion were that the answers incorporated documents 'making it difficult for the plaintiff to what extent the several questions propounded to said defendant have been answered'; that the answers did not sufficiently inform the

Page 317

plaintiff 'regarding the source and extent of the defendant's alleged title to the locus'; that the answers contained conclusions of law and of the person answering; and that the answers were insufficient 'to sustain the defendant's contentions.' The trial court sustained the plaintiff's objections, granted plaintiff's motion and entered the order now here on appeal, which provided as follows:

'1. The objections are sustained as to additional answers No. 1 and 5 and overruled as to answers number 2, 3 and 4. As to Interrogatory No. 6, Plaintiff applied ore tenus for leave to amend interrogatories and was granted such leave to amend.

'2. It is further ordered that said Defendant will file additional answers to Interrogatories numbered 1 and 5 within ten (10) days from the date of this Order and the Plaintiff will file its amended interrogatory No. 6 within a said period of time, the Defendant shall then be allowed sufficient time allowed under law for filing its response or objection thereto.'

For the reasons stated below regarding the requirement for such answers, we agree with the ruling of the trial court that the answer to interrogatory No. 1 as amplified was insufficient, and we affirm the order of the trial court in sustaining the plaintiff's objection thereto because of the attempt to include therein by reference facts stated in several separately filed affidavits of named persons.

The procedural rule relating to interrogatories, Rule 1.27 Fla.R.C.P., now appearing as Rule 1.340 RCP, 30 F.S.A., provides for answers to interrogatories to be made 'separately and fully in writing under oath,' and 'signed by the person making them.' The rule does not provide any precise form or content for the answers just as it does not provide a precise form or content for the interrogatories. It follows that an answer is adequate if it appears to be a full answer to an interrogatory and responsive thereto. However, an answer to an interrogatory must be complete in itself and should not refer to other pleadings or documents or affidavits and thereby attempt to make their contents a part of the answer. This is so because, as stated above, the answer made in response to an interrogatory is required to be the sworn answer of the party making it. The foregoing interpretations have been made with reference to the equivalent federal rule of practice relating to interrogatories. See Moore's Federal Practice, Second Edition, Vol. 4, § 33.25(1). Therefore the answer to interrogatory No. 1 was objectionable wherein it attempted to include by reference the facts set out in separately filed affidavits and the answer should be amended to eliminate the reference to the affidavits, and as required by the order of the trial court the answer should be supplemented, by the inclusion therein of such of the facts set forth in the affidavits as the official making the answer is in a position to state under oath. Accordingly, we affirm the order appealed from to the extent that it sustained the plaintiff's objection to the answer to interrogatory No. 1 and required the amendment or supplement thereof.

We disagree with plaintiff's contention that the interrogatories were substantially answered. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.380(a)(3); see State Road Department v. Florida East Coast Railway, 212 So.2d 315 (Fla.3d DCA 1968). Assuming arguendo that the engineering report contained the desired information, it was not presented to the defendants as they were entitled to receive it in accordance with the arrangement of their questions. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(e) permits that if insufficient space is provided in the interrogatories, "the answering party may attach additional papers with answers ...," but it does not authorize leaving a party to ferret and sift through a report to determine whether the requested information is there. Here, at the minimum, the defendants would have been forced to hazard the speculation that the information supplied was actually responsive ¹ to their inquiries.

The trial court's order hinges upon its finding that the burden of ascertaining the answers to the interrogatories from DPR's records is not substantially the same for FPPA as for DPR, and that DPR's response was incomplete within the meaning of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(3). We find no competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that searching the micro-film would be more burdensome for FPPA than for DPR. DPR's response complies with the requirements of rule 1.340(c), contrary to the trial court's finding that the response was incomplete. The trial court has departed from the essential requirements of law by requiring DPR to answer the interrogatories, instead of allowing it to exercise the option provided by rule 1.340(c).

The order of the trial court is QUASHED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.