Contention interrogatories highlight the critical role of timing
in the work product doctrine context. No one would expect a court
to order litigants to answer such interrogatories early in the
discovery process, but at some point every litigant obviously must
disclose its contentions.
In Pouncil v. Branch Law Firm, Civ. A. No.
10-1314-JTM-DJW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143227 (D. Kan. Dec. 13,
2011), defendants in a legal malpractice case asked the court to
delay their obligation to answer contention interrogatories until
completion of discovery. The court acknowledged that Fed. R. Civ.
P. 33(a)(2) allows courts to take that step. However, the court
ordered the defendants to answer plaintiff's contention
interrogatories "as fully as they can, keeping in mind their
continuing obligation to supplement their discovery responses as
additional or different information becomes available."
Id. at *18.
