Counting the Subparts of Interrogatories

Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(1) states that “a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.”

In Banerjee v. Rueger, 2026 WL 1078791 (D. Md. Apr. 21, 2026), Plaintiffs asserted that the following interrogatory contains seven subparts:

INTERROGATORY NO. 2[ ]. Please describe in full detail how the alleged occurrence happened on August 10, 2018 giving all events in detail in the order in which they occurred(9), before(10), at the time of(11), or after the occurrence(12), which had any bearing on the cause and manner of the happening of the occurrence(13), and describe the physical proximity of each defendant to you during the alleged use of excessive force(14) and/or unlawful search (15).

The Court wrote that the numbered parentheticals were in the original—perhaps meaning the original submitted by Plaintiffs.

The Court explained the standard for evaluating whether an interrogatory contains subparts:

To determine whether interrogatory sub-parts should count as multiple interrogatories, courts generally look to whether the subparts are directed at eliciting details concerning the common theme’ or instead whether they inquire into discrete areas.… Put differently, most courts have followed what is sometimes referred to as the related question approach, meaning they look to whether subparts are logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.…  [A] court considers whether the first question is primary and subsequent questions are secondary to the primary question.

Id. at *3 (cleaned up; citations; internal quotations and edits omitted).

Applying this standard, “this interrogatory does not contain any discrete subparts that should be separately counted under Rule 33. The items labeled as numbered subparts are not separate questions, nor could they reasonably be interpreted as such—they are instead all ‘directed at eliciting details’ regarding the scope of the occurrence on August 10, 2018.” Id. at *4.

The Court added: “Notably, Plaintiffs responded to the interrogatory in one part, not seven subparts…. Plaintiffs’ argument that they were adhering to Rule 33 is thus unconvincing.”  Id.

The Court then reprinted one of the pro se Plaintiff’s interrogatories that did contain four subparts:

INTERROGATORY NO. 10 [ ]: Why did you ask for ID or witnessed of asking ID of Plaintiff Mithun Banerjee when Plaintiff was inside his own house & do you know the Fourth Amendment Rights of US Citizens against illegal search & seizure & US Supreme Court’s Decision that forbid you to search Plaintiff’s Private Residence without any warrant & do you agree that you violated the US. Constitution & U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision by asking ID from the Plaintiff & provide detailed justification of your response & entering Plaintiff’s house & assaulting Plaintiff Mithun Banerjee or witnessed Plaintiff Mithun Banerjee’s Assault & detained him or witnessed to detain Plaintiff Mithun Banerjee inside his own house when Plaintiff Mithun Banerjee asked you to leave his private residence & did you receive any consent from Plaintiffs Mithun Banerjee & Malancha Banerjee to enter the property?

Id. at *4. The Court held that each question was separate and distinct.