Short answer. The scope is the same. Section 5 ties interrogatories to whatever matters can be inquired into under Section 2 of Rule 23 — the same scope that governs oral depositions — and lets the answers be used for the same purposes as deposition answers under Rule 23, Section 4.

What the law says

Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can be inquired into under [S]ection 2 of Rule 23, and the answers may be used for the same purposes provided in [S]ection 4 of the same Rule.

Rule 25, Section 5 — Scope and use of interrogatories. Read the full provision →

Scope mirrors deposition discovery

Rather than setting an independent standard, Section 5 borrows Rule 23's scope-of-examination provision wholesale, so anything that could be inquired into by way of an oral deposition is likewise fair game for written interrogatories. A party cannot object that a particular question is proper for a deposition but somehow off-limits in written form, since the two share exactly the same boundary line by cross-reference to the same provision. A party drafting interrogatories does not need to consult a separate, narrower standard simply because the questions will be answered in writing rather than posed live at a deposition. Nothing in the section carves out a separate, narrower category of subjects reserved only for interrogatories or only for depositions.

Use of the answers also mirrors deposition-use rules

Beyond scope, the answers a party gives to interrogatories can be used at trial or otherwise in the same ways a deposition can be used, following Rule 23's provision on that subject. That parity means an answering party cannot expect looser treatment simply because the exchange happened on paper rather than under oral examination before a court reporter. A party who wants to use an opponent's interrogatory answers against them at trial can rely on the same grounds that would justify using deposition testimony for that same purpose, without needing a separate, interrogatory-specific rule to get there. This shared use rule also means the two discovery devices can reinforce each other during the same case, rather than functioning as isolated, unrelated procedures.

Why interrogatories and depositions are linked this way

Tying both scope and use to the deposition provisions means interrogatories are not treated as a lesser or more restricted discovery tool — the real practical difference between the two is simply the written, rather than oral, format of the exchange. A party choosing between the two tools is really choosing a format and cost profile, not a broader or narrower window into the opposing party's knowledge. Interrogatories tend to be cheaper and easier to prepare than a full deposition, while a deposition allows follow-up questions in real time, but neither format opens or closes off a different scope of permissible inquiry. Understanding that the two are scope-equivalent helps a litigant plan discovery strategy around cost and convenience, rather than around any mistaken belief that one method reaches further than the other.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.