You fill out California Form DISC-002 by completing the caption with your case information, checking the boxes next to each interrogatory you want the other party to answer, signing the form, and serving it on the opposing party in a limited civil case. This Judicial Council form, titled Form Interrogatories—Economic Litigation, is the official discovery tool used in California limited civil cases where the amount in controversy is \$35,000 or less under the Economic Litigation Act.
Limited civil cases make up a huge share of California’s docket, with the Judicial Council reporting more than 400,000 limited civil filings each year in its Court Statistics Report. Filling out DISC-002 the right way protects your case, while filling it out the wrong way can cost you sanctions, waived objections, or a default judgment.
- 📋 How to complete every box, line, and checkbox on Form DISC-002 step by step
- ⚖️ The legal rules under the Code of Civil Procedure that control your answers and timing
- 💡 Real-world examples using named litigants in contract, auto, and collection cases
- 🚫 The most common mistakes that lead to motions to compel and money sanctions
- 📅 Service, response deadlines, and how to use answers at trial without losing leverage
What Form DISC-002 Is and When You Use It
Form DISC-002 is the official Judicial Council of California form for sending standardized written questions, called interrogatories, in a limited civil case. The form is approved under California Rules of Court, Rule 1.31 and tracks the discovery rules in the Civil Discovery Act.
You only use DISC-002 in limited civil cases. Limited civil cases are defined by Code of Civil Procedure § 85 as actions where the amount demanded is \$35,000 or less. The Legislature raised the limit from \$25,000 to \$35,000 effective January 1, 2024, through Senate Bill 71, which expanded the reach of the Economic Litigation Act and pulled many more cases into DISC-002 territory.
The form lets you ask narrow, pre-approved questions without drafting your own interrogatories from scratch. The plain-English purpose is simple: speed up small cases and save money on lawyers. The consequence of skipping the form and writing custom interrogatories is that the other side can object, because Code of Civil Procedure § 94 limits each party in a limited civil case to 35 specially prepared discovery requests in total, plus the official Judicial Council form. A real-world example is Maria, a plaintiff suing a contractor for \$18,000 in faulty repairs, who can send DISC-002 plus a few targeted special interrogatories without burning her 35-request cap. A common misconception is that DISC-002 counts against the 35-request limit, but it does not, because the statute exempts Judicial Council form interrogatories.
How DISC-002 Differs From DISC-001, DISC-003, and DISC-004
The Judicial Council publishes several form interrogatory packages, and using the wrong one is a fast way to draw an objection. DISC-001 is the general civil form interrogatory set used in unlimited cases over \$35,000. DISC-002 is the streamlined version for limited civil cases. DISC-003 covers supplemental interrogatories used to update earlier answers, and DISC-004 is the employment law package.
| Form | Use Case |
|---|---|
| DISC-001 | Unlimited civil cases over \$35,000 with broad form interrogatories |
| DISC-002 | Limited civil cases at or under \$35,000 with shorter, focused questions |
| DISC-003 | Supplemental interrogatories asking for updates to prior answers |
| DISC-004 | Employment law cases with discrimination, harassment, or wage claims |
The consequence of mixing them up is real. If Devon, a small-business plaintiff, serves DISC-001 in a \$20,000 unpaid invoice case, the defendant can object that the form is improper for limited civil and refuse to answer many sections. A common misconception is that DISC-001 and DISC-002 are interchangeable, but DISC-002 is shorter, omits several sections, and is the only form interrogatory set authorized for limited civil cases under the Economic Litigation Act.
The Legal Framework Behind DISC-002
Federal courts do not use DISC-002 because it is a state form. Federal civil discovery is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, which caps interrogatories at 25 per side and does not authorize Judicial Council forms. California’s state framework is broader and more form-driven, which is why DISC-002 exists.
In California, three statutory pillars control DISC-002. The first is the Civil Discovery Act at Code of Civil Procedure § 2016.010 and following. The second is the Economic Litigation Act at sections 90 through 100. The third is the California Rules of Court, which set service, format, and motion practice rules.
Each statute carries direct consequences. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.260, a responding party has 30 days plus 5 days for mail service to answer. Missing the deadline waives all objections, including attorney-client privilege, under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290. A real-world example is Tomas, a defendant who ignored DISC-002 for 45 days and then tried to assert privilege, only to have the trial court find waiver and order full answers plus \$1,500 in sanctions. A common misconception is that you can mail an objection without a sworn answer and stop the clock, but the statute requires a verified response, and a bare objection letter is not a response.
The Economic Litigation Act in Plain English
The Economic Litigation Act is California’s effort to make small cases cheap. Code of Civil Procedure § 91 limits available discovery in limited civil cases. The plain-English rule is that each side gets a tight number of discovery tools, not unlimited fishing.
Under Code of Civil Procedure § 94, each party can use any combination of 35 of these tools: special interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admission, and depositions. DISC-002 does not count against that 35. The consequence of ignoring section 94 is sanctions, because the court treats over-discovery as harassment under Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030. A mini-scenario: Aisha sends 40 special interrogatories in a \$10,000 limited case, and the defendant moves for a protective order; the court strikes 5 questions and orders Aisha to pay \$750 in fees. A common misconception is that lawyers can opt out of section 94, but you cannot, unless the case is reclassified as unlimited under Code of Civil Procedure § 403.020.
Step-by-Step: How to Fill Out DISC-002
This walkthrough covers every line on the form, top to bottom, in the order the form appears. The current version is found on the Judicial Council forms page and was last revised January 1, 2024. Always download the most recent version, because old forms can be rejected at filing under Rule of Court 1.44.
The Caption: Top of Page 1
The caption is the box at the top with the attorney information and the court name. Enter the propounding party’s name, address, telephone, fax, email, and State Bar number if an attorney. Self-represented parties write In Pro Per on the State Bar line.
Next, fill in the superior court name and the court branch address. Then list the plaintiff and defendant exactly as they appear on the Complaint, and add the case number. The consequence of a wrong caption is rejection at the clerk’s window, because Rule of Court 2.111 requires the caption to match the operative pleading. A mini-scenario: Brian, a self-represented landlord, types the wrong case number on his DISC-002, and the tenant ignores the form because it is technically defective. A common misconception is that minor caption errors are harmless, but courts routinely strike defective discovery as a nullity.
Section 1.0 — Identity of Persons Answering These Interrogatories
Section 1.0 asks for the name, address, telephone number, and relationship to the case of every person who helped answer the interrogatories. Check the box at item 1.1 to send this question. The plain-English purpose is to find out which witnesses helped craft the responses.
The consequence of failing to disclose helpers is that the responding party may be barred from calling those witnesses at trial under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.310. A mini-scenario: Carla answers DISC-002 with her bookkeeper’s help but does not list the bookkeeper, then tries to call him at trial; the judge excludes the testimony. A common misconception is that only the named party must be disclosed, but anyone who supplied facts must also be listed.
Section 2.0 — General Background Information
Section 2.0 collects basic identifying details. Item 2.1 asks for the responder’s name and any names used in the past five years. Item 2.2 asks for the date and place of birth. Item 2.3 asks for the responder’s residence addresses for the past five years.
Item 2.4 asks for the name, address, and telephone of the responder’s present employer. Item 2.5 asks for past employers within the last five years. Item 2.6 asks whether the responder has been convicted of a felony, which is admissible for impeachment under Evidence Code § 788. The consequence of dodging 2.6 is that prior convictions can still be discovered through criminal records, and the court can sanction evasive answers. A mini-scenario: Dimitri leaves 2.6 blank in a fraud case, and opposing counsel uses a CLETS subpoena to pull the conviction anyway, then files a motion to compel with sanctions.
Section 3.0 — Investigation: General
Item 3.1 asks the responder to list every statement, written or recorded, made by any person about the incident or claim. The plain-English meaning is hand over your witness statements. The consequence of withholding statements is that the answering party cannot use them at trial, under the doctrine in Deyo v. Kilbourne, 84 Cal. App. 3d 771 (1978).
Item 3.2 asks for the names and addresses of every witness to the incident. A mini-scenario: Elena, a defendant in a slip-and-fall, lists only one witness in 3.2 but later tries to add three more at trial; the court excludes the surprise witnesses for unfair surprise. A common misconception is that 3.2 only requires favorable witnesses, but it requires all witnesses with knowledge of the facts.
Section 4.0 — Property Damage
Section 4.0 only applies if property damage is claimed. Item 4.1 asks for the property’s description and damage details. Item 4.2 asks who inspected, repaired, or appraised the property.
The consequence of incomplete property damage answers is the loss of the right to claim those damages at trial. A mini-scenario: Frank sues over a damaged truck for \$12,000 and skips item 4.1, then tries to introduce a body-shop estimate at trial; the judge sustains an objection because the estimate was never disclosed. A common misconception is that you can update later without consequence, but late disclosure invites a motion in limine.
Section 5.0 — Loss of Income From Business or Employment
Section 5.0 captures lost wages or business losses. Item 5.1 asks for the responder’s job and earnings at the time of the incident. Item 5.2 asks for documents supporting the loss claim, like pay stubs, tax returns, and profit and loss statements.
Withholding income documents triggers exclusion of damages claims under Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030. A mini-scenario: Gabriela, a freelance designer, claims \$8,000 in lost income but refuses to produce her 1099s; the defendant moves to exclude lost-income evidence, and the court grants the motion. A common misconception is that tax returns are privileged, but California courts hold tax-return privilege does not bar disclosure when the taxpayer puts income at issue, per Schnabel v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 704 (1993).
Section 6.0 — Physical, Mental, or Emotional Injuries
Section 6.0 collects details about claimed injuries. Item 6.1 asks for the nature, location, and severity of each injury. Item 6.2 asks for every health-care provider who treated the responder.
The consequence of incomplete responses is exclusion of medical testimony at trial. A mini-scenario: Henry sues over a fender-bender and lists only his chiropractor, then tries to call an orthopedist at trial; the judge bars the testimony. A common misconception is that medical privacy under HIPAA blocks disclosure, but placing physical condition at issue waives the privilege under Evidence Code § 996.
Section 7.0 — Other Damages
Section 7.0 asks about any other type of damage not covered above, including incidental and consequential damages. Item 7.1 asks for an itemized statement of those damages. Item 7.2 asks for supporting documents.
A common misconception is that you can plead damages broadly and prove them later; you cannot, because Civil Code § 3300 requires proof of damages with reasonable certainty. A mini-scenario: Iris, a small bakery owner, claims \$5,000 in lost profits from a refrigerator failure but cannot produce sales records; the court limits her recovery to direct repair costs.
Section 8.0 — Medical History (Plaintiff Only)
Item 8.1 asks the plaintiff about pre-existing medical conditions in the same body part as the claimed injury. The consequence of hiding prior injuries is impeachment at trial and loss of credibility with the jury. A mini-scenario: Jamal sues over a back injury but hides a prior chiropractic history; the defense pulls Kaiser records and shreds his credibility on cross-examination.
A common misconception is that pre-existing conditions defeat the case. Under California’s eggshell plaintiff rule from Rideau v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 124 Cal. App. 2d 466 (1954), a defendant takes the plaintiff as found, including pre-existing weaknesses.
Section 9.0 — Other Defendants and Insurance
Item 9.1 asks for information on insurance policies that may cover the claim, including policy limits. Item 9.2 asks whether anyone is funding the defense.
Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.210, insurance information is discoverable in California. The consequence of refusing to provide it is a motion to compel and sanctions. A common misconception is that insurance is confidential, but the statute makes it explicitly discoverable, even though it is inadmissible at trial under Evidence Code § 1155.
Section 10.0 — Contract Cases
Section 10.0 only applies in contract disputes. Item 10.1 asks for the existence, terms, and signing of the contract. Item 10.2 asks for any contract modifications. Item 10.3 asks about contract breach claims.
The consequence of incomplete contract answers is summary adjudication on the contract claim, because under Code of Civil Procedure § 437c, unsupported allegations cannot survive summary judgment. A mini-scenario: Kevin, a plaintiff suing over a roofing contract, gives vague answers in 10.1, and the defendant wins summary adjudication for failure to produce contract terms.
The Signature, Verification, and Proof of Service
The propounding party signs page 1 of DISC-002. The verification, required for the responses (not the questions), is governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.250 and must be signed under penalty of perjury. The proof of service uses Judicial Council form POS-030 for mail service or POS-040 for personal service.
Failure to verify responses is treated as no response at all under Appleton v. Superior Court, 206 Cal. App. 3d 632 (1988), waiving all objections. A common misconception is that an attorney’s signature alone verifies responses; only the party can verify under penalty of perjury, except for objections-only responses.
Three Most Common DISC-002 Scenarios
These are the three fact patterns that show up over and over in California limited civil court.
Scenario 1: Breach of Contract
| Litigant Action | Discovery Consequence |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff sends DISC-002 with sections 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 7.0, and 10.0 checked | Defendant must answer contract terms, breach claims, and damages within 35 days |
| Defendant ignores 10.0 and gives boilerplate objections | Court grants motion to compel and orders \$1,000 in sanctions under § 2030.300 |
| Plaintiff uses verified answers at trial as admissions | Defendant cannot contradict prior answers without a verified amendment |
Scenario 2: Auto Accident
| Litigant Action | Discovery Consequence |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff sends DISC-002 checking 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 9.0 | Defendant must reveal injuries, prior conditions, and insurance limits |
| Defendant lowballs property damage in 4.1 | Plaintiff impeaches with body-shop estimates and recovers full repair costs |
| Plaintiff hides prior back injury in 8.1 | Court allows defense to introduce Kaiser records and reduces verdict |
Scenario 3: Credit Card Collection
| Collector Action | Debtor Consequence |
|---|---|
| Collector sends DISC-002 checking 1.0, 2.0, 7.0, and 10.0 | Debtor must verify identity, contract terms, and account balance |
| Debtor ignores DISC-002 entirely | All objections waived under § 2030.290, default-style judgment likely |
| Debtor responds with verified denial of contract | Collector must produce signed agreement under Civil Code § 1633.7 or lose the case |
Mistakes to Avoid With DISC-002
Avoid these specific errors when filling out or responding to DISC-002.
- Using DISC-001 in a limited civil case, which leads to an objection that the form is improper for the case type
- Forgetting to check any boxes, which results in zero questions being propounded and wasted effort
- Missing the 30-day response deadline, which waives every objection, including privilege, under § 2030.290
- Filing DISC-002 with the court, which violates Rule of Court 3.250 banning the filing of discovery
- Skipping the verification on responses, which is treated as no response at all per Appleton v. Superior Court
- Cutting and pasting boilerplate objections without explanation, which leads to sanctions under § 2023.010
- Hiding witnesses in 3.2, which causes the court to exclude their testimony at trial
- Withholding insurance information in 9.1, which triggers a motion to compel and \$500-plus sanctions
- Lying in section 8.0 about prior medical conditions, which destroys credibility and invites perjury charges
- Forgetting the proof of service, which means no clock starts and no motion to compel is possible
Real-World Examples With Named Parties
Example 1: Maria the Homeowner
Maria hires a contractor for \$22,000 in kitchen remodeling. The work is shoddy, and she sues in limited civil court. She sends DISC-002 with sections 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 7.0, and 10.0 checked, plus 8 special interrogatories about the contractor’s license. The contractor objects to 10.3 as vague but answers everything else. Maria files a motion to compel under § 2030.300, wins, and the court orders \$850 in sanctions. At trial, the verified answers come in as party admissions under Evidence Code § 1220, and Maria wins a \$19,000 verdict.
Example 2: Devon the Small-Business Owner
Devon runs a bakery and sues a vendor for a defective oven that cost him \$11,000 in lost income. He sends DISC-002 with 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, and 7.0 checked. The vendor refuses to answer 5.2, citing trade secret. Devon files a motion to compel and points to Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court, 7 Cal. App. 4th 1384 (1992), which limits trade-secret objections in discovery. The court orders production under a protective order, and Devon recovers his lost income at trial.
Example 3: Aisha the Tenant
Aisha withholds rent because of a mold problem and gets sued by her landlord in limited civil for \$8,000 in unpaid rent. She answers and cross-complains for habitability violations under Civil Code § 1941. She sends DISC-002 with 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 6.0, and 10.0 checked. The landlord stalls, and Aisha files a motion to compel; the court awards \$1,200 in sanctions and orders full answers within 10 days. The verified answers reveal prior tenant complaints, which Aisha uses to win her cross-claim.
Key Court Rulings That Shape DISC-002 Practice
California appellate courts have shaped how DISC-002 is enforced. Deyo v. Kilbourne sets the standard for adequate interrogatory responses, requiring full answers without evasion. Obregon v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 4th 424 (1998), requires the propounding party to meet and confer in good faith before filing a motion to compel further responses.
Appleton v. Superior Court holds that an unverified response is treated as no response. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, 148 Cal. App. 4th 390 (2007), reinforces that late responses waive all objections and that the only cure is a noticed motion under § 2030.290(a)(2).
The consequence of ignoring this case law is predictable: motions to compel, sanctions, and sometimes terminating sanctions that end the case. A common misconception is that judges are flexible about deadlines; many California discovery commissioners are openly strict, especially in limited civil where the entire point is speed.
Do’s and Don’ts for DISC-002
Do
- Do download the most recent version of DISC-002, because the form was revised in 2024 and old versions can be rejected
- Do calendar the 30-day deadline plus 5 days for mail service immediately, because missing it waives objections under § 2030.290
- Do verify your responses under penalty of perjury, because unverified responses equal no response
- Do meet and confer in writing before filing a motion to compel, because Obregon requires good-faith efforts
- Do keep service proofs, because without POS-030 you cannot prove the deadline started
Don’t
- Don’t file DISC-002 with the court, because Rule 3.250 prohibits filing routine discovery
- Don’t paste boilerplate objections, because Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513 (1997), allows sanctions for meritless objections
- Don’t answer in your lawyer’s voice, because the party must verify the substantive answers
- Don’t exceed 35 special interrogatories on top of DISC-002, because § 94 caps total non-form discovery
- Don’t ignore section 6.0 if you are the plaintiff in an injury case, because hiding medical history destroys credibility
Pros and Cons of Using DISC-002
Pros
- Saves drafting time, because the questions are pre-approved by the Judicial Council
- Does not count against the 35-request cap in § 94, leaving more room for special interrogatories
- Provides verified, sworn answers usable at trial under Evidence Code § 1220 as party admissions
- Easy for self-represented litigants to use without a lawyer, because the format is fill-in-the-box
- Forces early disclosure of witnesses, damages, and insurance, locking opposing parties into early positions
Cons
- Limited to limited civil cases under \$35,000, so it is unavailable in larger matters
- Some sections are too narrow for complex contract or business disputes
- Verified answers can backfire if your own client’s facts are weak, because they become admissions
- Cannot replace deposition testimony for credibility-driven cases
- The form does not cover punitive damages discovery, requiring separate special interrogatories under Civil Code § 3295
Service, Timing, and Filing the Motion to Compel
Service of DISC-002 is governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 1013 for mail and § 1010.6 for electronic service. You can serve by mail, personal delivery, fax with consent, or e-service if the parties have agreed or the court has ordered it.
The response deadline is 30 days after service, plus 5 days for mail and 2 court days for fax or e-service. The clock runs from the day after service. The consequence of any miscalculation is enormous, because objections waive automatically under § 2030.290.
If responses are missing or inadequate, the propounding party can file a motion to compel under § 2030.300 within 45 days of the verified response. Failure to move within 45 days waives the right to compel further responses, per Sexton v. Superior Court, 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403 (1997). A mini-scenario: Liam receives boilerplate objections on day 30 and waits 60 days to move; the court denies the motion as untimely. A common misconception is that the 45-day clock can be extended by stipulation, but only a written agreement under § 2030.300(c) preserves the right.
FAQs
Can I use DISC-002 in a small claims case?
No. Form DISC-002 is for limited civil cases under § 85, not small claims. Small claims under § 116.310 prohibit pretrial discovery entirely.
Do DISC-002 questions count against the 35-request limit?
No. Code of Civil Procedure § 94 explicitly excludes Judicial Council form interrogatories from the 35-request cap, so DISC-002 is in addition to your 35 special discovery requests.
Can I add my own questions to DISC-002?
No. You cannot modify the form, but you can serve up to 35 special interrogatories on Judicial Council form DISC-005 or your own pleading paper alongside DISC-002.
Do I file DISC-002 with the court?
No. Under California Rules of Court 3.250, discovery requests and responses are not filed with the court unless attached to a motion or used at trial.
Can a self-represented party serve DISC-002?
Yes. Self-represented litigants serve DISC-002 the same way as attorneys, with the only difference being that they sign in the attorney box and write In Pro Per instead of a State Bar number.
Are objections waived if responses are late?
Yes. Under § 2030.290, any party who fails to serve a timely response waives all objections, including attorney-client privilege and work product.
Can I serve DISC-002 by email?
Yes. Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6 allows electronic service when the parties consent, the court orders it, or the case is in a mandatory e-filing court.
Are DISC-002 answers admissible at trial?
Yes. Verified answers are admissible as party admissions under Evidence Code § 1220 and can be read into the record at trial without further foundation.
Can I refuse to provide insurance information in 9.1?
No. Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.210 makes the existence and contents of liability insurance discoverable, even though Evidence Code § 1155 bars admission at trial.
Can a corporate party answer DISC-002?
Yes. A corporation may answer through any officer or agent with knowledge under § 2030.250(b), and that person signs the verification on behalf of the entity.
Can I object to DISC-002 questions?
Yes. You may object on grounds like privilege, vagueness, or relevance, but objections must be specific, made in good faith, and not boilerplate, or sanctions follow under § 2023.010.
Can I get sanctions for bad DISC-002 responses?
Yes. Courts award monetary sanctions under § 2030.300(d) for evasive answers, meritless objections, and refusals to comply, with average awards in the \$500 to \$2,500 range.
Related reading
- How to Fill Out California Form CM-010 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DISC-001 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DISC-003 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DISC-005 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DISC-020 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DISC-030 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form CIV-010 (w/Examples) + FAQs