{"content":[{"text":"Rule 213. Written Interrogatories to Parties","bbox":{"left":0.117647,"top":0.08903,"width":0.366647,"height":0.020985000000000004}},{"text":"APPENDIX","bbox":{"left":0.451373,"top":0.123439,"width":0.09690200000000004,"height":0.020212000000000008}},{"text":"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF \n THE STATE OFILLINOIS","bbox":{"left":0.369804,"top":0.165864,"width":0.26031400000000005,"height":0.04142399999999999}},{"text":"STANDARD INTERROGATORIES \n UNDER SUPREME COURT RULE 213(j)","bbox":{"left":0.328235,"top":0.2295,"width":0.343196,"height":0.04142399999999999}},{"text":"Under amended Supreme Court Rule 213(j) (eff. January 1, 1996), “[t]he Supreme Court, by \n administrative order, may approve standard forms of interrogatories for different classes of \n cases.” The committee comments to this rule state, “In an effort to avoid discovery disputes, the \n practitioner is encouraged to utilize interrogatories approved by the Supreme Court pursuant to \n paragraph (j) whenever possible.” The following interrogatories are hereby approved pursuant to \n that amended rule. A party may use one or more interrogatories which are part of a form set of \n interrogatories. Any such interrogatory so used shall be counted as one interrogatory in \n determining the total number of interrogatories propounded, regardless of any subparts or \n multiple inquiries therein. A party may combine form interrogatories with other interrogatories, \n subject to applicable limitations as to number. A party shall avoid propounding a form \n interrogatory which has no application to the case. \n Counsel should note other provisions of amended Rule 213 that are reflected in these \n standard interrogatories, and which are applicable to nonstandard interrogatories as well. As the \n committee comments to amended Rule 213(a) indicate, “[the] prior requirement that the written \n interrogatories be spaced so as to permit the answering party to answer upon the interrogatory \n served upon him has been amended to eliminate the spacing requirement, primarily because of \n the practical and customary way in which interrogatories are answered.” Although the proponent \n of interrogatories may still use spacing between his or her interrogatories, these standard \n interrogatories do not. \n Also, amended Rule 213(d) retains the requirement that “[w]ithin 28 days after service of the \n interrogatories upon the party to whom they are directed, the party shall serve a sworn answer or \n an objection to each interrogatory, with proof of service upon all other parties entitled to notice. \n *** The answering party shall set forth in full each interrogatory being answered immediately \n preceding the answer.” (Emphasis added.) While the supreme court envisions that parties will \n continue with the practice of creating a new document in response to interrogatories, and it is the \n duty of the respondent to interrogatories to attest to the truthfulness of his or her answers, these \n standard interrogatories include sample attestation clauses. \n Finally, under amended Supreme Court Rule 213(i), a party has a duty to seasonably \n supplement or amend any prior answer or response whenever new or additional information \n subsequently becomes known to that party. The proponent of the interrogatories may wish to \n include a reminder of this duty in the interrogatories.","bbox":{"left":0.117646,"top":0.293136,"width":0.765099,"height":0.554303}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}