Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California
First Set of Interrogatories
A judgment was entered against me, and the lawyers of the plaintiff sent me a set of 7 interrogatories. One of the interrogatories is asking for my current address and personal information (i.e. social security number, driver�s license number, current address, date of birth, and number of dependents). Although I do not object to providing my current address, I do object to the remainder of this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and invasive of my privacy. Furthermore, I have recently become a potential victim of identity theft & can provide proof to the court if necessary of this. Thus, in light of this fact, providing the plaintiff with my social security number would be unduly burdensome.
One of the other interrogatories is asking for the name & address of all other creditors collecting on me. However, I feel that this too is irrelevant and invasive of my privacy. As for the remaining interrogatories, they are asking for information which is not applicable to me, such as my employer�s information, my spouse�s information, and bank account information. However, I am currently a full-time student, and do not work, nor do I receive unemployment benefits. I do not have a bank account or any assets. As for the interrogatories asking for my �spouse�s� information, the plaintiff has made the assumption that I am married, which is incorrect, as I am not currently married, nor have I ever been married.
I feel that all of the interrogatories are irrelevant and invasive of my privacy, and I am considering objecting to all of the interrogatories on these grounds. However, I also feel that disclosing my information to the plaintiff (i.e. that I am an unemployed full-time student, unmarried, and do not possess a bank account or any assets) will not hurt my case should I have to go before a judge, as I can provide proof of my status. Therefore, my question is should I disclose my personal information to the plaintiff or should I object to the interrogatories on the grounds that they are irrelevant and invasive of my privacy? Thank You.
2 Answers from Attorneys
The judgment creditor is seeking normal information about you so he/she/it can find your assets and levy against them in order to satisfy the judgment. This is standard procedure.
Providing your social security number is not "unduly burdensome"; you just don't want to do it. You have a non-trivial reason for not wanting to provide your SSN, but that doesn't make providing it burdensome. A burdensome request is one that, say, requires you to go through a hundred boxes of papers and copy thousands of documents. A request that asks you for a nine-digit sequence which you already know by heart is about the least burdensome request I can imagine.
Your creditor is entitled to the information it seeks. That *someone else* may have committed identity theft against you (you say only that you can prove you are a "potential victim", which is a non sequitur) does not change this fact. It may make your reluctance more understandable, but it does not entitle you to withhold the information.
As to the questions about your spouse, etc., you are free to answer "Not applicable" if the questions are based upon false assumptions.
If you make groundless objections, the creditor will be entitled to move for an order compelling you to answer. If that motion succeeds (which it almost certainly will), the court is likely to order you not only to answer the questions but also to pay the additional attorney fees and costs the other side incurred due to your refusal to answer.
Disclosing your information is the price you pay for getting a judgment against you. If you object to these interrogatories all you will do is set yourself up for fines and orders that you pay the other side's attorneys fees. If you can't pay this judgment, you should consider bankruptcy. Otherwise, play by the rules or be prepared to pay a lot of extra money in fines and the other side's attorneys fees.