Court Opinion

ID: 9851551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:14:55.883566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:37.353326
License: Public Domain

URBIGKIT, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the court’s opinion.
Further comment is only made to define not only as failing in good practice, but as inexcusable to either not answer interrogatories or to file an objection or motion for a protective order. The spirit of Rule 11, W.R.C.P. in negative fashion should not be so casually ignored as is now frequently encountered where the discovery respondent anticipates a free ride until enforcement is impressed under Rule 37, W.R.C.P. In such cases, the so-called free ride should be accompanied by attorney’s fees and reasonable expenses under Rule 37(a)(4), W.R. C.P., for real, not figurative, compensation as a charged fare for the delays and costs incurred. It is inexcusable to systematically fail either to answer or to object to submitted interrogatories.
Similarly objectionable in my opinion is any pro-forma submission of written interrogatories, such as in this divorce case, where the information should be equally known to each litigant and the request is motivated by something other than the acquisition of information for trial preparation. In this regard, Rule 11 relief to respondent, who is forced to either inanely answer or regularly object, should not be ignored.
To serve the expeditious and inexpensive completion of litigation, interrogatories should be thoughtfully prepared and promptly controverted or answered. Anything else subverts the delivery of justice process.