Short answer. No, not without the court's permission. Section 4 bars a party from serving more than one set of interrogatories on the same party without leave of court, so a second set requires you to seek and obtain that leave first.
What the law says
No party may, without leave of court, serve more than one set of interrogatories to be answered by the same party.
Rule 25, Section 4 — Number of interrogatories. Read the full provision →
The one-set default rule
Absent leave of court, a party is limited to a single set of written interrogatories directed at any given adverse party — the section applies per party being questioned, not to the case as a whole. In a case with multiple defendants or plaintiffs, this one-set limit runs separately against each of them, so serving a full set on one party does not use up any allowance against a different party in the same case.
Leave of court as the workaround
Additional sets are not forbidden outright, only conditioned on the court's permission. A party who needs a second set would typically file a motion explaining why the further interrogatories are necessary, ideally identifying what new information or developments in the case make the additional questions necessary beyond what the first set already covered, and why they could not have been included there.
Why this limit exists
It prevents written interrogatories from becoming an open-ended, piecemeal fishing expedition, and pushes parties to consolidate their questions into one comprehensive set rather than serving them in a trickle. That, in turn, spares the responding party from repeatedly preparing and verifying multiple separate rounds of sworn answers over the entire course of the same litigated case, each of which takes time and legal review to prepare properly.
How this interacts with other discovery tools
The one-set limit applies specifically to interrogatories under Rule 25; it does not by itself restrict a party's use of other discovery devices, such as depositions or requests for admission, to gather additional information from the same party. A party who has exhausted the one free set of interrogatories may still turn to those other tools without needing leave of court, even while a second set of written interrogatories itself would require that same permission from the court. A party who serves a second set without first obtaining leave risks having it stricken on motion, since the one-set default binds the serving party's own conduct regardless of whether the responding party would have answered voluntarily. Where several parties on the same side each want to question a single adverse party, each of them still gets only one set of their own, so coordinating in advance to consolidate questions can avoid the need to seek leave at all.