K.S.A. » Chapter 60
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-233 (2026)

Interrogatories to parties

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-233. Interrogatories to parties. (a) In general. (1) Availability; timing. A party may serve written interrogatories on the plaintiff after commencement of the action and on any other party with or after service of process on that party.

(2) Scope. An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under subsection (b) of K.S.A. 60-226, and amendments thereto. An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.

(b) Answer and objection. (1) Responding party. The interrogatories must be answered:

(A) By the party to whom they are directed; or

(B) if that party is a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency or other entity, by any officer or agent, who must furnish the information available to the party.

(2) Time to respond. The responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories, except that a defendant may serve answers or objections within 45 days after being served with process. A shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under K.S.A. 60-229, and amendments thereto, or be ordered by the court.

(3) Answering each interrogatory. Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.

(4) Objections. The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.

(5) Signature. The person who makes the answers must sign them, and the attorney who objects must sign any objections.

(c) Use. An answer to an interrogatory may be used to the extent allowed by the rules of evidence.

(d) Option to produce business records. If the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing, compiling, abstracting or summarizing a party's business records, including electronically stored information, and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party may answer by:

(1) Specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could; and

(2) giving the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts or summaries.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-233; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 20, 1972; L. 1986, ch. 215, § 7; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 16; L. 2008, ch. 21, § 3; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 102; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2022 · leading case: Siruta Ex Rel. Heirs at Law of Siruta v. Siruta, 348 P.3d 549 (Kan. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Siruta Ex Rel. Heirs at Law of Siruta v. Siruta, 348 P.3d 549 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 2× “As Missy points out, K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-233 requires that “[t]he person who makes the answers [to interrogatories] must sign them, and the attorney who objects must sign any objections.”
Oller v. Kincheloe's, Inc., 681 P.2d 630 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 4× “(11) Interrogatories under K.S.A. 60-233 may be of better service than definiteness and certainty in pleadings, as, unlike pleadings, answers to interrogatories must be made under oath and the answers may be used at the trial by the interrogating party, subject to the rules of…”
Kansas Dep't of Revenue v. Coca Cola Co., 731 P.2d 273 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 2× “” The use of interrogatories in civil proceedings is governed by K.S.A. 60-233, which permits their service on a defendant “with or after service of process upon that party.”
Hare v. Wendler, 949 P.2d 1141 (Kan. 1997). “The letters do not satisfy the requirements of K.S.A. 60-233(a) (written interrogatories).”
Noel v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 805 P.2d 1244 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). “]' “(11) Interrogatories under K.S.A. 60-233 may be of better service than definiteness and certainty in pleadings, as, unlike pleadings, answers to interrogatories must be made under oath and the answers may be used at trial by the interrogating party, subject to the rules of…”
Reed v. Hess, 716 P.2d 555 (Kan. 1986). “Defendants had failed to answer plaintiffs interrogatories within the statutory time period of 30 days as provided by K.S.A. 60-233(a) and plaintiff moved to compel and to assess attorney fees as provided by K.”
In re Florez, 316 P.3d 755 (Kan. 2014). “The respondent had 30 days, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-233 and 234, until January 4, 2009, to answer the interrogatories.”
Thoroughbred Assoc. v. Kansas Royalty Co., 248 P.3d 758 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “See K.S.A. 60-233(c) (An interrogatory may require an answer entailing "the application of law to fact.”
Flaherty v. CNH Indus. Am., 446 P.3d 1078 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). “We fail to see how the mere verification of answers to interrogatories waived the statutory privileges, and Flaherty cites no caselaw to directly support his claim.”
Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts v. Parcells (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-233(b)(2) (time requirement for interrogatories); K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-233(a) — 2 cases
Hare v. Wendler, 949 P.2d 1141 (Kan. 1997). “The letters do not satisfy the requirements of K.S.A. 60-233(a) (written interrogatories).”
Reed v. Hess, 716 P.2d 555 (Kan. 1986). “Defendants had failed to answer plaintiffs interrogatories within the statutory time period of 30 days as provided by K.S.A. 60-233(a) and plaintiff moved to compel and to assess attorney fees as provided by K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-233(b)(1)(B) — 1 case
Flaherty v. CNH Indus. Am., 446 P.3d 1078 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). “We fail to see how the mere verification of answers to interrogatories waived the statutory privileges, and Flaherty cites no caselaw to directly support his claim.”
— K.S.A. § 60-233(b)(2) — 1 case
Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts v. Parcells (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-233(b)(2) (time requirement for interrogatories); K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-233(b)(5) — 1 case
Siruta Ex Rel. Heirs at Law of Siruta v. Siruta, 348 P.3d 549 (Kan. 2015). “As Missy points out, K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-233 requires that “[t]he person who makes the answers [to interrogatories] must sign them, and the attorney who objects must sign any objections.”
— K.S.A. § 60-233(c) — 1 case
Thoroughbred Assoc. v. Kansas Royalty Co., 248 P.3d 758 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “See K.S.A. 60-233(c) (An interrogatory may require an answer entailing "the application of law to fact.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.