case finally decides "full and complete" concept in interrogatories

Discovery (especially written) is a game. And the rules don't get enforced. Opposing sides rarely spend the money and time to bring a motion to compel. Even if ordered to provide further discovery responses, courts rarely impose sanctions. So, lawyers just have to be governed by their own standards of professionalism; a key line to draw is between asserting "hypertechnical" objections and gratuitously answering inappropriate/objectionable discovery requests.

One objection that used to be in my lineup was that a particular interrogatory is not "full and complete in and of itself," as required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (d), which provides in full:

(d) Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included with a set of interrogatories unless it has been approved under Chapter 17 (commencing with section 2033.710 [form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council]).

We took this provision to mean that an interrogatory is objectionable if it relies on definitions contained in previous interrogatories, or relies on a "preface or instruction." I've never used this objection -- in itself -- to not respond to an interrogatory, but still, combined with other valid objections, it could help justify not responding to a request. But this always felt like one of those "really?" objections. In fact, seizing on "at most an arguable technical violation of the rule" has been called "the type of gamesmanship and delay decried by the drafters of the [Discovery] Act." (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1287.)

Not surpisingly, Clement kills this objection and hit the lawyer with $6,000 in sanctions. I just can't believe Clement spent almost four pages talking about this throw-away objection (guess the court was pissed). Basically, Clement makes clear that the rule is simply meant to prevent parties from circumventing the "rule of 35" -- parties may only propound 35 specially prepared interrogatories. So, the rule is now that references to previous rogs, and outside materials/documents, is only prohibited where the effect is to undermine the rule of 35 (i.e., by asking a single rog about the "truthfulness" of a party's 10,000 deposition answers). (Id. at p. 1290.)

I agree with Clement and Professor Martin's take on Clement. Obviously. I mean who's gonna argue against the "practical approach" adopted by the court. But I still think you need to make your "nitpicky boilerplate" objections, or else they're waived. You just can't use them as an excuse to not answer the rog.

The joke behind the "rule of 35," however, is that parties don't need to resort to sub-parts and referencing outside materials to break the rule. All they have to do is file a form declaration stating the need for the additional discovery, and that the discovery is not sought for an improper purpose. (Code Civ. Proc., §§2030.040, 2030.050.) Then you can ask as many rogs as you want, placing the burden on the responding party to seek a protective order.