## Facts

- Cable & Computer Technology, Inc. sued Lockheed Saunders, Inc. and related entities over disputes arising from radar-simulator contract work, asserting claims including breach of contract and fraud.
- During discovery, Lockheed Saunders served interrogatories asking Cable & Computer to calculate its damages and to state the facts supporting its allegations.
- Cable & Computer objected, arguing the interrogatories were improper “contention interrogatories” and premature because they required detailed positions on facts and legal theories.
- Lockheed Saunders moved to compel responses to the challenged interrogatories.

## Issues

1. Whether interrogatories are objectionable merely because they request opinions or contentions applying law to fact, including damage computations, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.
2. Whether the responding party met its burden to justify refusing to answer the interrogatories based on “contention interrogatory” objections and timing concerns.

## Decision

- The court granted Lockheed Saunders’ motion to compel.
- The court ordered Cable & Computer to provide substantive responses, including damages calculations and factual bases for its allegations.
- The court rejected Cable & Computer’s blanket objection that the requests were improper simply because they were “contention interrogatories.”

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 33, an otherwise proper interrogatory is not objectionable solely because the answer involves an opinion or contention relating to fact or the application of law to fact.
- Interrogatories may require a party to state the facts supporting its allegations and to provide damage computations.
- The burden of supporting an objection to discovery rests on the party resisting discovery.
- Concerns that an interrogatory answer may constrain later proof are addressed by the ability to amend or supplement interrogatory answers as discovery develops.

## Conclusion

The court compelled answers to interrogatories seeking damage calculations and the factual bases for pleaded claims, holding that Rule 33 permits contention interrogatories and that a party may not refuse to respond merely because the requests seek law-to-fact contentions.


Cable & Comput. Tech., Inc. v. Lockheed Saunders, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 646 (C.D. Cal. 1997)