Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 804.08 (2026)
Interrogatories to parties
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
804.08(1)(a)(a) Except as provided in s. 804.015, any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served, or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a limited liability company or a partnership or an association or a governmental agency or a state officer in an action arising out of the officer’s performance of employment, by any officer or agent, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party. Interrogatories may, without leave of court, be served upon the plaintiff after commencement of the action and upon any other party with or after service of the summons and complaint upon that party.
804.08(1)(am)(am) A party shall be limited, unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court in a manner consistent with s. 804.01 (2), to a reasonable number of requests, not to exceed 25 interrogatories, including all subparts.
804.08(1)(b)(b) Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer. The answers are to be signed by the person making them, and the objections signed by the attorney making them. The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories, except that a defendant may serve answers or objections within 45 days after service of the summons and complaint upon that defendant. The court may allow a shorter or longer time. The party submitting the interrogatories may move for an order under s. 804.12 (1) with respect to any objection to or other failure to answer an interrogatory.
804.08(2)(a)(a) Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under s. 804.01 (2), and the answers may be used to the extent permitted by chs. 901 to 911.
804.08(2)(b)(b) An interrogatory otherwise proper is not necessarily objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the court may order that such an interrogatory need not be answered until after designated discovery has been completed or until a pretrial conference or other later time.
804.08(3)(3) 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:
804.08(3)(a)(a) 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
804.08(3)(b)(b) Giving the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries.
804.08 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 676 (1975); 1975 c. 218; 1993 a. 112; 1997 a. 133; Sup. Ct. Order No. 09-01, 2010 WI 67, filed 7-6-10, eff. 1-1-11; 2017 a. 235; 2021 a. 238 s. 45.
804.08 NoteJudicial Council Note, 2010: The meaning of the term “electronically stored information” is described in the Judicial Council Note following Wis. Stat. s. 804.09.
804.08 AnnotationSection 804.08 (3) is taken from F.R.C.P. 33(d). Portions of the Committee Note of the federal Advisory Committee on Civil Rules are pertinent to the scope and purpose of s. 804.08 (3): Special difficulties may arise in using electronically stored information, either due to its form or because it is dependent on a particular computer system. Rule 33(d) allows a responding party to substitute access to documents or electronically stored information for an answer only if the burden of deriving the answer will be substantially the same for either party. Rule 33(d) states that a party electing to respond to an interrogatory by providing electronically stored information must ensure that the interrogating party can locate and identify it “as readily as can the party served,” and that the responding party must give the interrogating party a “reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect” the information. Depending on the circumstances, satisfying these provisions with regard to electronically stored information may require the responding party to provide some combination of technical support, information on application software, or other assistance. The key question is whether such support enables the interrogating party to derive or ascertain the answer from the electronically stored information as readily as the responding party. A party that wishes to invoke Rule 33(d) by specifying electronically stored information may be required to provide direct access to its electronic information system, but only if that is necessary to afford the requesting party an adequate opportunity to derive or ascertain the answer to the interrogatory. In that situation, the responding party’s need to protect sensitive interests of confidentiality or privacy may mean that it must derive or ascertain and provide the answer itself rather than invoke Rule 33(d). [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 2011]
804.08 AnnotationWhen the cost of discovery was several times greater than the claim for damages, a protective order against discovery was appropriate. Vincent & Vincent, Inc. v. Spacek, 102 Wis. 2d 266, 306 N.W.2d 85 (Ct. App. 1981).
804.08 AnnotationThe Effective Use of Written Interrogatories. Schoone & Miner. 60 MLR 29 (1976).
804.08 AnnotationWhat You Need to Know: New Electronic Discovery Rules. Sankovitz, Grenig, & Gleisner. Wis. Law. July 2010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Vincent & Vincent, Inc. v. Spacek, 306 N.W.2d 85 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981).
Vincent & Vincent, Inc. v. Spacek, 306 N.W.2d 85 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981). “See Judicial Council Committee’s Note [1974] to §804.08, Stats., 67 Wis.2d at 677-78. If Spacek is willing to post bond to cover discovery costs or is willing to do the discovery work himself, the trial court may wish to reconsider this matter or require Ford to provide the…”
Rupert v. Home Mut. Ins., 405 N.W.2d 661 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “Section 804.08(1)(b), Stats., provides in part: The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories .”
State Ex Rel. Opelt v. Crisp, 260 N.W.2d 25 (Wis. 1977). “Pursuant to sec. 804.08, Stats., Crisp’s lawyer caused a set of interrogatories directed to Opelt to be served on her lawyers, Assistant Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel.”
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 2006 WI 45 (Wis. 2006). “had signed the document it was not notarized as required by Wis. Stat. § 804.08 (l)(b)(1999-2000). In addition, Reitz failed to respond to the request for production of documents.”
Zarnstorff v. Neenah Creek Custom Trucking, 2010 WI App 147 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “This decision should not be read to suggest any weakening of the obligation of insurers and their insureds— like all other persons and parties served with discovery — to comply with the requirements of Wis. Stat. §§ 804.08 -.il. Rather, we hold only that on the facts of this…”
Theis v. Short, 2010 WI App 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “We explained that Rupert had constructive notice that failure to answer interrogatories could result in dismissal, under Wis. Stat. §§ 804.08 (l)(b) and 804.12(4).”
Earl v. Gulf & W. Mfg. Co., 366 N.W.2d 160 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “— Order affirmed in part and reversed in part. 1 The trial court may allow the Earls access to E.”
Glendale Stewart v. Mike Pozorski (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 804.08, noted that even though Power Sports objected to Stewart’s questions and was not required to answer them, it still provided adequate responses to those questions.”
Ashley M. Hinrichs v. Greg Griswold (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 804.08(1)(b); WIS. STAT. § 804.09(2)(b).”
Minnesota Built Harris, LLC v. Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 804.08(1)(b) (requiring that the answers to interrogatories “be signed by the person making them”).”
Greg Griswold v. Kathy Thompson (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 804.08(1)(am)), and two broadly stated requests for production of documents.”
Mpoli N. Simwanza-Johnson v. Matthew Christopher Johnson (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “17 However, 16 At the hearing on Matt’s motion to compel, Mpoli also argued for the first time that if leave was not required to conduct discovery, Matt had already, prior to trial in the divorce action, used the 25 interrogatories allotted to him pursuant to WIS.”
— Wis. Stat. § 804.08(1) — 1 case
Vincent & Vincent, Inc. v. Spacek, 306 N.W.2d 85 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981). “See Judicial Council Committee’s Note [1974] to §804.08, Stats., 67 Wis.2d at 677-78. If Spacek is willing to post bond to cover discovery costs or is willing to do the discovery work himself, the trial court may wish to reconsider this matter or require Ford to provide the…”
— Wis. Stat. § 804.08(1)(am) — 2 cases
Greg Griswold v. Kathy Thompson (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 804.08(1)(am)), and two broadly stated requests for production of documents.”
Mpoli N. Simwanza-Johnson v. Matthew Christopher Johnson (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “17 However, 16 At the hearing on Matt’s motion to compel, Mpoli also argued for the first time that if leave was not required to conduct discovery, Matt had already, prior to trial in the divorce action, used the 25 interrogatories allotted to him pursuant to WIS.”
— Wis. Stat. § 804.08(1)(b) — 4 cases
Rupert v. Home Mut. Ins., 405 N.W.2d 661 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “Section 804.08(1)(b), Stats., provides in part: The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories .”
Ashley M. Hinrichs v. Greg Griswold (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 804.08(1)(b); WIS. STAT. § 804.09(2)(b).”
Glendale Stewart v. Mike Pozorski (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 804.08, noted that even though Power Sports objected to Stewart’s questions and was not required to answer them, it still provided adequate responses to those questions.”
Minnesota Built Harris, LLC v. Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 804.08(1)(b) (requiring that the answers to interrogatories “be signed by the person making them”).”
— Wis. Stat. § 804.08(3) — 2 cases
Vincent & Vincent, Inc. v. Spacek, 306 N.W.2d 85 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981). “See Judicial Council Committee’s Note [1974] to §804.08, Stats., 67 Wis.2d at 677-78. If Spacek is willing to post bond to cover discovery costs or is willing to do the discovery work himself, the trial court may wish to reconsider this matter or require Ford to provide the…”
Earl v. Gulf & W. Mfg. Co., 366 N.W.2d 160 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “— Order affirmed in part and reversed in part. 1 The trial court may allow the Earls access to E.”
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.