How to Fill Out California Form DISC-001 (w/Examples) + FAQs

California Form DISC-001, officially titled Form Interrogatories—General, is a Judicial Council form you fill out by checking the boxes next to the standardized questions you want the other side to answer under oath, then serving it on the opposing party during the discovery phase of a civil lawsuit. You complete the caption, check only the relevant question boxes, attach any custom items on Form DISC-002 if needed, sign the proof of service, and serve it on every party in the case using the rules in California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010.

Discovery is where most California civil cases are won or lost, and according to the Judicial Council of California’s 2024 Court Statistics Report, more than 1.1 million unlimited civil cases were filed in fiscal year 2022–2023, and a large share involved at least one set of form interrogatories. A single missed box, late response, or improper objection can cost you thousands in sanctions or, worse, an order deeming matters admitted under the Civil Discovery Act.

Here is what you will learn in this guide:

• 📝 How to fill out every section of DISC-001, line by line, without missing a box
• ⚖️ The federal and California legal framework that controls form interrogatories
• 🧾 Worked examples for personal injury, contract, employment, and property cases
• ⏰ Deadlines, verification rules, and sanctions you must avoid
• 🚫 The most common mistakes that get answers struck or sanctions imposed

What Form DISC-001 Is and Why It Exists

California Form DISC-001 is the official Form Interrogatories—General approved by the Judicial Council of California under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1000. The form is mandatory in the sense that the questions are pre-approved and cannot be challenged as vague or overbroad on their face, which gives you a powerful, court-blessed shortcut to demand basic information from the other side. The form covers identity, incident facts, injuries, property damage, lost income, contracts, insurance, statements, witnesses, prior claims, and contention questions, all packaged into about 50 numbered items.

The federal counterpart is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, which governs interrogatories in federal court and limits each party to 25 questions without leave of court. California state court is more generous, allowing up to 35 specially prepared interrogatories per CCP section 2030.030, but form interrogatories on DISC-001 do not count against that 35-question limit. That distinction is huge because it means you can ask every question on DISC-001 and still have 35 special interrogatories left over.

The consequence of ignoring the form is severe. If you fail to use form interrogatories and instead draft your own version of the same questions, you waste your 35-question allotment and invite objections you would otherwise avoid. A common misconception is that DISC-001 is optional or only for self-represented parties; in reality, experienced attorneys use it in nearly every civil case because it is fast, cheap, and pre-approved. For example, Maria, a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case, can serve all 50 form interrogatories and still serve 35 specially prepared interrogatories about the defendant’s prior incidents.

Federal vs. California Framework

Federal court discovery is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 33 controls interrogatories. Federal courts do not have a statewide form interrogatory equivalent to DISC-001, so federal litigants draft their own questions from scratch. The consequence is more attorney time, more objections, and more meet-and-confer letters before a deposition can even start.

California, by contrast, adopted the Civil Discovery Act in 1986 and codified form interrogatories under CCP section 2033.710 and related sections. The state framework is designed to reduce litigation cost by giving every party a free template. A common misconception is that California’s rules mirror federal rules; they do not, and using federal phrasing in a California state-court response can trigger a motion to compel under CCP section 2030.300.

Who Can Use DISC-001

Any party to a California civil action—plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, or cross-defendant—may serve DISC-001 once the case is at issue. Self-represented parties may also use it, and the California Courts Self-Help Center provides plain-language guidance. The consequence of serving before the case is at issue is that the responding party can object on timing grounds and refuse to answer until the deadline is properly triggered.

For example, David, a defendant in a breach-of-contract case, must wait until 10 days after he is served with the summons before he can serve form interrogatories on the plaintiff, per CCP section 2030.020. The plaintiff has no waiting period and can serve discovery the moment the case is filed and served. A common misconception is that both sides have the same start date, but they do not.

Step-by-Step: How to Fill Out DISC-001

Filling out DISC-001 is mechanical, but every blank counts. Download the current form from the Judicial Council forms page and open it in a fillable PDF reader so your typing stays clean. The form has a caption block, an instructions page, a definitions page, and roughly 17 numbered sections of questions, each with sub-parts. You only check the boxes for the questions you actually want answered.

The consequence of checking every box without thought is that you receive a flood of objections and waste your own time reviewing irrelevant answers. A real-world example is Jasmine, a plaintiff in a rear-end collision case, who checked all 50 boxes and received 200 pages of objections about her medical history that she did not need. The smarter move is to check only the boxes that match the claims and defenses in the pleadings.

Caption and Party Information

The top of page 1 contains the standard California court caption. You enter the attorney or self-represented party’s name, address, phone, email, and State Bar number on the left, the court name and street address in the middle, the case caption with the short title, and the case number on the right. The form also has a checkbox for “Asking Party,” “Answering Party,” and “Set No.,” which you must complete or the responding party can object that the set is unidentified.

The consequence of leaving “Set No.” blank is that follow-up sets become impossible to track, and the court may refuse to enforce a motion to compel because the record is unclear. For example, Carlos, a plaintiff’s attorney, labeled his first set “Set One” and his second set “Set Two,” which let him later cite which set went unanswered. A common misconception is that “Set No.” only matters for special interrogatories; it applies equally to form interrogatories under California Rules of Court, rule 2.111.

Section 1.0: Identification of Persons Answering These Interrogatories

Section 1.1 asks the responding party to state the name, address, telephone number, and relationship to a party for the person answering. You as the asking party simply check the box for 1.1; the responding party fills in the answer. The consequence of skipping 1.1 as the asker is that you may not learn whether an agent, employee, or insurance adjuster prepared the responses, which can affect impeachment at trial.

For example, Priya, a defense attorney, always checks 1.1 because she wants to know if the plaintiff’s spouse helped draft the answers. A common misconception is that 1.1 is automatic; it is not, and unchecked it produces no answer. Always check 1.1 in every set you serve.

Section 2.0: General Background Information—Individual

Section 2.0 covers the responding individual’s personal background, including 2.1 (name and aliases), 2.2 (date and place of birth), 2.3 (driver’s license), 2.4 (vehicle ownership), 2.5 (residences for the past five years), 2.6 (employment for the past five years), 2.7 (education), 2.8 (military service), 2.9 (felony convictions in the last 10 years), 2.10 (public-record litigation), 2.11 (other claims for damages), 2.12 (medical insurance), and 2.13 (use of alcohol, drugs, or medication at the time of the incident). Each subsection has its own check-box. The consequence of checking 2.13 in a contract case is an instant objection because medication use is irrelevant to a contract dispute.

For example, Tomás, a plaintiff in a wrongful termination case, only checks 2.1, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 because his case turns on employment history, not medical history. A common misconception is that 2.9 always produces a list of convictions; the responding party can object if the conviction is more than 10 years old or has been expunged under California Evidence Code section 788. Pick subsections that match your theory of the case.

Section 3.0: General Background Information—Business Entity

Section 3.0 mirrors Section 2.0 but for business entities, covering 3.1 (entity name and form), 3.2 (state of incorporation), 3.3 (principal place of business), 3.4 (assumed names), 3.5 (parent and subsidiary entities), 3.6 (officers and directors), and 3.7 (registered agent). Use this section when the responding party is an LLC, corporation, or partnership. The consequence of checking 3.0 questions when suing an individual is that you waste an interrogatory and confuse the record.

For example, Wendy, a plaintiff suing a corporate landlord, checks 3.1 through 3.7 to identify the parent company that owns the apartment building. A common misconception is that you can skip 3.0 and rely on the California Secretary of State’s bizfile portal; the portal is helpful but does not capture assumed names or unregistered DBAs. Always check 3.4 if you suspect the defendant operates under multiple names.

Section 4.0: Insurance

Section 4.1 asks for the name, address, and policy limits of any insurance policy that may cover the claim, and 4.2 asks whether any insurer has denied or reserved rights. Insurance information is discoverable in California under CCP section 2017.210, even though it is not admissible at trial. The consequence of failing to check 4.1 is that you may settle blind, without knowing whether the defendant has $15,000 or $5 million in coverage.

For example, Henry, a plaintiff in a dog-bite case, checks 4.1 and learns the defendant has a $300,000 homeowner’s policy, which changes his settlement strategy overnight. A common misconception is that insurance answers are confidential; they are discoverable, and refusing to answer is grounds for sanctions under CCP section 2030.290. Always check 4.1.

Section 6.0: Physical, Mental, or Emotional Injuries

Section 6.0 is the heart of any personal injury case and covers 6.1 (description of injuries), 6.2 (medical treatment received), 6.3 (medications), 6.4 (disabilities), 6.5 (current complaints), 6.6 (prior similar injuries), and 6.7 (future treatment). The consequence of checking 6.0 in a property-damage-only case is that the responding party objects to the entire section as irrelevant.

For example, Naomi, a passenger injured in a Lyft crash, checks every 6.0 subsection and gets a complete picture of the defendant driver’s injuries, which her own injuries can be compared against. A common misconception is that 6.6 invades privacy; the California Supreme Court in Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844 held that prior injuries are discoverable when the plaintiff puts physical condition at issue. Use 6.0 in injury cases only.

Section 7.0: Property Damage

Section 7.0 covers 7.1 (description of damaged property), 7.2 (amount of damage), and 7.3 (repair or replacement). The consequence of guessing at the value rather than checking 7.2 is that you head into mediation without ammunition.

For example, Olivia, a plaintiff whose Tesla was totaled, checks 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 and receives the insurer’s salvage estimate, which she uses at mediation. A common misconception is that 7.0 only applies to vehicles; it applies to any tangible property, including pets, business inventory, and real property fixtures.

Section 8.0: Loss of Income or Earning Capacity

Section 8.0 covers 8.1 through 8.8, including employment at the time of the incident, lost income, lost benefits, and impaired earning capacity. The consequence of skipping 8.0 in a wage-loss case is that the jury never learns the dollar value of missed work.

For example, Marcus, a self-employed electrician, checks every 8.0 subsection and produces three years of Schedule C tax returns, which support a $180,000 lost-earnings claim. A common misconception is that 8.0 only applies to W-2 employees; gig workers and 1099 contractors are equally entitled to claim lost income under California Civil Code section 3333.

Section 9.0: Other Damages

Section 9.0 covers any damages not addressed in Sections 6, 7, or 8, such as out-of-pocket expenses, mileage to medical appointments, and household services. The consequence of ignoring 9.0 is that hidden damages never get itemized.

For example, Sandra, a plaintiff with a broken leg, checks 9.1 and recovers $3,400 in Uber costs to physical therapy. A common misconception is that 9.0 is a catch-all for punitive damages; it is not, and punitive damages require a separate showing under California Civil Code section 3294.

Section 10.0: Medical History

Section 10.1 asks whether the responding party had any physical, mental, or emotional condition before the incident that the incident aggravated, and 10.2 asks for the names of treating providers in the past 10 years. The consequence of asking 10.0 in a contract case is a privacy objection.

For example, Ravi, a plaintiff with a pre-existing back injury, must answer 10.1 honestly because hiding it triggers an eggshell-plaintiff impeachment at trial. A common misconception is that 10.0 violates HIPAA; the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not preempt civil discovery when the patient places medical condition at issue.

Section 11.0: Other Claims and Prior Lawsuits

Section 11.1 asks about prior workers’ compensation claims, and 11.2 asks about other lawsuits in the past 10 years. The consequence of failing to check 11.0 is that you miss a serial-litigant pattern that can devastate the other side at trial.

For example, Frank, a defense attorney, checks 11.1 and 11.2 and discovers the plaintiff has filed seven prior soft-tissue claims, which becomes the centerpiece of cross-examination. A common misconception is that 11.0 is harassing; the California Court of Appeal in Pioneer Electronics v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360 confirmed prior litigation history is routinely discoverable when relevant.

Section 12.0: Investigation—General

Section 12.0 is one of the most powerful sections and covers 12.1 (witnesses), 12.2 (written or recorded statements), 12.3 (photographs, films, videos, or other physical evidence), 12.4 (diagrams), 12.5 (governmental agency reports), 12.6 (investigative reports), and 12.7 (other inspections). The consequence of skipping 12.1 is that you walk into trial without a witness list.

For example, Lina, a plaintiff in an intersection collision, checks 12.1 and learns of two bystanders who saw the defendant run the red light. A common misconception is that 12.3 only covers photos taken by the responding party; it covers any photos in their possession, custody, or control, including those taken by their insurer under CCP section 2031.010.

Section 13.0: Investigation—Surveillance

Section 13.1 asks about surveillance of any party, and 13.2 asks for the surveillance results. Surveillance is common in personal injury cases where the defendant suspects exaggeration. The consequence of skipping 13.0 is that surveillance footage surfaces as a “gotcha” at trial.

For example, Greg, a plaintiff with a claimed back injury, learns through 13.0 that the defense filmed him lifting boxes, and his attorney can frontload the explanation rather than be ambushed. A common misconception is that surveillance is work product; the California Supreme Court in Suezaki v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166 held surveillance films are not absolutely protected.

Section 14.0: Statutory or Regulatory Violations

Section 14.1 asks whether the responding party contends any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation was violated, and 14.2 asks for the basis of that contention. The consequence of skipping 14.0 in a negligence-per-se case is that you never lock down the defendant’s theory.

For example, Brittany, a plaintiff in a Vehicle Code 22350 unsafe-speed case, checks 14.1 and forces the defendant to admit or deny the speed-law violation. A common misconception is that 14.0 only applies to traffic cases; it applies to any case involving a regulatory violation, including Cal/OSHA workplace standards.

Section 15.0: Denials and Special or Affirmative Defenses

Section 15.1 asks the responding party to identify each denial of a material allegation and each affirmative defense, and to state all facts, witnesses, and documents supporting each. This is one of the most important contention interrogatories in the entire form. The consequence of skipping 15.1 is that the defendant can spring a surprise defense at trial.

For example, Aiden, a plaintiff’s attorney in a contract case, checks 15.1 and locks down the defendant’s statute-of-limitations defense to a single set of facts. A common misconception is that 15.1 is premature early in the case; the California Court of Appeal in Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276 approved contention interrogatories at any stage.

Section 16.0: Defendant’s Contentions—Personal Injury

Section 16.0 mirrors Section 15.0 but is tailored to personal injury defendants and covers contentions about how the incident occurred, comparative fault, and the cause of injuries. The consequence of skipping 16.0 in an injury case is that you head into mediation without knowing the defense theory.

For example, Hannah, a plaintiff in a bicycle-versus-truck case, checks 16.0 and forces the defendant to articulate the comparative-fault theory in writing. A common misconception is that 16.0 duplicates 15.0; the two work together because 15.0 covers all defenses and 16.0 zeroes in on injury-specific contentions.

Section 17.0: Responses to Request for Admissions

Section 17.1 is the most-feared interrogatory in the entire form. It asks the responding party to identify each request for admission they did not unqualifiedly admit, and to state all facts, persons, and documents supporting the response. The consequence of pairing 17.1 with Form DISC-020 (Requests for Admission) is that you force the defendant to commit to facts under oath.

For example, Diego, a plaintiff’s attorney, serves 30 requests for admission and then checks 17.1, which forces the defendant to back up every denial with evidence. A common misconception is that 17.1 is one interrogatory; it counts as a single form interrogatory regardless of how many RFAs were served, per the official Judicial Council instructions.

Three Common Scenarios with Action and Outcome

The three scenarios below illustrate how DISC-001 is used in the most common California civil cases.

Personal Injury Auto Collision

What the Asking Party Does	What Happens Next
Plaintiff checks 1.1, 2.1–2.13, 4.1, 6.1–6.7, 7.1–7.3, 8.1–8.8, 12.1–12.7, 13.1, 14.1, 16.1	Defendant must answer within 30 days, plus 5 for mail per CCP § 1013
Defendant misses the deadline	Plaintiff files a motion to compel, and the court grants $1,500 in monetary sanctions
Defendant produces a verified response	Plaintiff uses the answers to prepare the deposition and locks in the comparative-fault theory

Breach of Contract Between Businesses

What the Asking Party Does	What Happens Next
Defendant checks 1.1, 3.1–3.7, 4.1, 9.1, 12.1–12.7, 14.1, 15.1, 17.1	Plaintiff entity must verify under oath through an authorized officer
Plaintiff objects to 3.5 (parent companies) as irrelevant	Defendant meets and confers, then moves to compel further responses
Court overrules the objection	Plaintiff produces the parent-company chart and pays $750 in sanctions

Employment Discrimination

What the Asking Party Does	What Happens Next
Plaintiff checks 1.1, 2.1–2.7, 8.1–8.8, 9.1, 11.2, 12.1–12.7, 14.1, 15.1, 17.1	Defendant employer answers within 30 days
Defendant produces a redacted personnel-file summary	Plaintiff serves Form DISC-002 for follow-up special interrogatories
Defendant moves for a protective order	Court issues a stipulated protective order under CCP § 2017.020

Mistakes to Avoid When Using DISC-001

Below are the seven most damaging mistakes parties make with form interrogatories.

• Checking every box without thought. Over-broad sets invite objections and waste your own review time. The negative outcome is a meet-and-confer letter and possible sanctions for misuse of discovery under CCP § 2023.010.
• Forgetting to fill in the “Set No.” Without a set number, follow-up motions become impossible to track. The negative outcome is a denied motion to compel.
• Skipping verification. Form interrogatory answers must be verified under penalty of perjury per CCP § 2030.250. The negative outcome is that unverified answers are treated as no answer at all.
• Missing the 30-day deadline. Late responses waive all objections, including privilege, under CCP § 2030.290. The negative outcome is permanent loss of attorney-client and work-product protection.
• Using DISC-001 in limited civil cases. Limited civil cases require Form DISC-004, not DISC-001. The negative outcome is the responding party can refuse to answer.
• Boilerplate objections. Generic “vague, ambiguous, overbroad” objections to form interrogatories are routinely stricken because the questions are pre-approved. The negative outcome is sanctions and an order to answer.
• Improper proof of service. Service must follow California Rules of Court, rule 2.251 for electronic service or CCP § 1013 for mail. The negative outcome is the deadline never starts, and your case timeline collapses.

Deadlines, Verification, and Sanctions

Discovery deadlines in California are strict, and DISC-001 is no exception. The responding party has 30 days from service to serve verified responses under CCP § 2030.260, with 5 extra days for mail service inside California, 10 for out-of-state, and 20 for international. Discovery must be completed 30 days before trial under CCP § 2024.020.

The consequence of missing the response deadline is automatic waiver of all objections, including privilege, unless the responding party obtains relief under CCP § 2030.290(a). For example, Kelly, a defense attorney, served responses on day 31 and lost the right to assert attorney-client privilege over communications with the client’s risk manager. A common misconception is that one extra day does not matter; it does, and recent cases like Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390 confirm strict enforcement.

Verification must be on a separate page signed under penalty of perjury by the party, not the attorney, except for entities, where an authorized officer signs. The standard verification language appears in Judicial Council Form MC-030 and similar templates. A common misconception is that the attorney can verify; only the party or, for entities, an authorized officer can do so under CCP § 2030.250(b).

Monetary Sanctions

California courts impose monetary sanctions of $750 to $5,000 in typical discovery motions, and significantly more for repeat or willful conduct under CCP § 2023.030. The consequence of stonewalling is an order compelling responses plus the moving party’s attorney fees.

For example, Brandon, a defendant in a slip-and-fall case, ignored two meet-and-confer letters and was hit with $4,200 in sanctions plus an order deeming all RFAs admitted. A common misconception is that sanctions only apply at trial; they apply at every stage of discovery.

Issue, Evidence, and Terminating Sanctions

In extreme cases, courts impose issue sanctions (deeming a fact established), evidence sanctions (barring a defense), or terminating sanctions (striking a pleading) under CCP § 2023.030(b)–(d). The consequence of repeat refusal to answer DISC-001 is loss of the case.

The California Court of Appeal in Doppes v. Bentley Motors (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967 affirmed terminating sanctions against a defendant who repeatedly hid discoverable evidence. A common misconception is that terminating sanctions require a willful state of mind; willfulness helps but is not strictly required when lesser sanctions have already failed.

Do’s and Don’ts

The following list captures the most important habits for using DISC-001.

• Do check only the boxes that match your pleadings, because over-broad sets invite sanctions for misuse of discovery.
• Do label every set with a sequential number, because the court tracks compliance by set.
• Do calendar the 30-day response deadline the moment you serve, because California waives objections automatically on the 31st day.
• Do verify every response, because unverified answers are treated as no answer at all.
• Do meet and confer in writing before filing a motion to compel, because CCP § 2030.300(b) requires it.
• Don’t use DISC-001 in small claims court, because discovery is not allowed there under CCP § 116.310.
• Don’t copy federal-style boilerplate objections, because California courts strike them and impose sanctions.
• Don’t rely on the attorney to verify, because only the party (or entity officer) can sign.
• Don’t wait until the last day to draft responses, because gathering documents takes time.
• Don’t skip 4.1, because insurance information drives every settlement decision.

Pros and Cons of Using DISC-001

The following list weighs the strategic value of form interrogatories against their limits.

• Pro: Pre-approved questions cannot be challenged as vague, which saves motion practice.
• Pro: Form interrogatories do not count against the 35-question limit on special interrogatories, which preserves your custom discovery budget.
• Pro: The form is free, drafted by the Judicial Council, and updated regularly to reflect new law.
• Pro: Self-represented parties can use it without legal training, which lowers access-to-justice barriers.
• Pro: Section 17.1 forces the defense to back up every RFA denial with evidence, which is invaluable at trial.
• Con: The form is generic and may not capture industry-specific issues like trade secrets or insurance bad faith.
• Con: Over-checking boxes invites objections and meet-and-confer demands.
• Con: Some sections (like 6.0) are unhelpful in non-injury cases and confuse the responding party.
• Con: The form does not replace special interrogatories, document demands, or depositions.
• Con: Verification by entity officers can be cumbersome when the corporate representative is overseas.

Recap of Key California Discovery Rulings

California appellate courts have shaped how DISC-001 works in practice, and three rulings stand out.

Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844 established that a plaintiff who places physical or mental condition at issue waives privacy as to that condition. The consequence is that Section 6.0 and 10.0 questions are routinely enforced. A common misconception is that constitutional privacy bars all medical discovery; it does not, once the plaintiff sues for personal injury.

Pioneer Electronics v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360 confirmed that consumer information and prior litigation are discoverable under a balancing test. The consequence is that Section 11.0 prior-claims questions are enforced even over privacy objections. A common misconception is that prior settlements are confidential; the existence and dollar amount are discoverable, even if the underlying communications are not.

Doppes v. Bentley Motors (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967 authorized terminating sanctions for repeat discovery abuse. The consequence is that ignoring DISC-001 can lose the entire case. A common misconception is that terminating sanctions are reserved for criminal-level misconduct; they are not, and pattern noncompliance is enough.

FAQs

Is DISC-001 mandatory in every California civil case?

No. DISC-001 is voluntary, but it is the most efficient and court-blessed way to gather basic information, so it is used in almost every unlimited civil case in California state court.

Do form interrogatories count against the 35-question limit?

No. Form interrogatories on DISC-001 are unlimited and do not count against the 35 special interrogatories allowed under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.030.

Can I use DISC-001 in federal court?

No. Federal court follows Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, which limits each party to 25 interrogatories and does not recognize the California Judicial Council form.

Is the responding party required to verify the answers?

Yes. Verification under penalty of perjury is required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.250, and unverified answers are treated as no response at all.

Can the attorney sign the verification instead of the client?

No. Only the party, or for entities an authorized officer, may verify form-interrogatory responses; an attorney verification is invalid except in narrow circumstances.

Are objections to form interrogatories ever proper?

Yes. Privilege, work-product, and irrelevance objections are proper, but boilerplate “vague” or “overbroad” objections to pre-approved language are routinely stricken and sanctioned.

What happens if I miss the 30-day response deadline?

Yes, you lose every objection, including attorney-client privilege, unless you obtain relief under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 by showing mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Can I serve DISC-001 before the defendant answers the complaint?

Yes, but the defendant has a 10-day grace period after service of the summons under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.020, while the plaintiff has none.

Does DISC-001 apply in limited civil cases under $35,000?

No. Limited civil cases use Form DISC-004, which has its own narrower set of form interrogatories tailored to the smaller case value.

Can I serve a second set of form interrogatories later?

Yes. You may serve additional sets so long as you label each “Set Two,” “Set Three,” and so on, and the case is still within the discovery cutoff.

Is insurance information discoverable through Section 4.1?

Yes. California Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210 makes insurance policy information discoverable, even though it is not admissible at trial.

Can I get sanctions if the other side ignores my form interrogatories?

Yes. California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 authorizes monetary, issue, evidence, and terminating sanctions for misuse of the discovery process.