Obligation to respond to written interrogatories requesting personal information

Question

I received a letter form an attorney, resembling this template.

(Header of that template for posterity):

        SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
               COUNTY OF BLAH


    PLAINTIFF'S NAME  ) Case No.:  ####
    Plaintiff(s)      )
        vs.           ) WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES 
    DEFENDANT'S NAME  ) TO RESPONDING PARTY
        Defendant(s)  ) SET 1
______________________) 

No clerk signature, no judge signature, only signatures I see are the attorney's and the signature of someone, who I assume is from his office, on a "proof of service by mail."

The questions are requesting a lot of personal information including driver's license #, social security #, bank account #, savings account #, employer information, etc.

For background information: I had a bad split with my previous employer who is being petty. Made the man millions of dollars and he can't let $5,000 go. A small claims verdict was entered in his favor in 2010.

What I am trying to determine is: Am I required to respond to this?

Answer 1

If what you show is correct and above-board then you are being sued in superior court. However it sounds unlikely that the plaintiff could have served you with notice of such a lawsuit without you realizing it, so if I were you I would first call the court to see if they do in fact have a case with the docket number listed. Then ask:

• When and who served the original notice in the case (because if you really didn't get it then whoever said you did majorly screwed up and is probably in trouble)
• Who the plaintiff's counsel is

If the letter was from a real lawyer on the California Bar, and that case really is open in the superior court with you as a defendant, then you really are being sued, and you should either get a lawyer or negotiate a settlement, because if you don't answer and defend then you're just going to have more judgments against you.

If any of the above does not check out then whoever sent that letter is in big trouble if you report it to the DA, postal inspector, and (if they are a real lawyer) the Bar.

Answer 2

Yes. You need to answer; they are normal interrogatories. They don't require anything except an attorney's signature (or the pro se party's signature) as well as the notice that tells you how long you have to respond. Look at the rule they are under (it will be in the Rules of Civil Procedure around 33). You can object to preserve objections for trial, but you still need to answer. Look at model objections and have them all written out on a separate document you can cut and paste from. Object in bold before your answer. If you don't object now you can't later. If you do, and you win, the info you give them cannot be used. Also, count the number of interrogatories (not including subparts). The rule will have a maximum they can ask. It is common for them to go over. Stop answering if they get to the limit and make them ask a judge for more. It is common that the most important ones will come last and if you win, you won't have to disclose.

The objection you are referring to states "this interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and is not likely to lead to relevant information."

That said, you still have to answer unless you can't get the information. You have to understand: the questions are meant to are invasive. They are a fishing expedition to try to get information to use against you. What you have cited are standard questions and are not invasive by the court's standards.

You do not get to object on relevance or privacy concerns. They clearly want to find out where all your assets are or may be. Leaving anything out or lying is tantamount to perjury. Your answers must be notarized.

You really need a lawyer. If you cannot afford one, look for law schools with legal aid clinics, or legal aid in your area. Call your local bar association for information. Good luck.