Interrogatory-response redaction is the removal of personal data from written answers served under FRCP 33. Rule 33(b)(3) makes each answer complete and sworn. anonym.plus runs on your device, so the substance the question calls for stays put.
When this applies
Many interrogatories ask you to identify people: witnesses, account holders, prior employers. Cutting a name the question asks for leaves the answer incomplete and invites a Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(iii) motion. Unrelated data still goes.
How anonym.plus handles it
- Load the responses into anonym.plus on your device.
- It scans each answer and the verification block.
- The tool flags names, addresses, and account data.
- Confirm the flags; keep the responsive content.
- Replace or mask each confirmed value.
- Save the clean responses on your device.
What you need to provide
- The responses (DOCX or PDF).
- An operator; Replace keeps each answer readable.
- Optional allow-list for party names you must keep.
PII entity types detected
| Category | anonym.plus entity type | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Names | PERSON | third party → [NAME] |
| Location | LOCATION | home address → [ADDRESS] |
| Account | US_BANK_NUMBER | account no. → [ACCOUNT] |
| Contact | PHONE_NUMBER | phone → [PHONE] |
| Dates | DATE_TIME | DOB → [DOB] |
| Identifiers | US_SSN | SSN → [SSN] |
Compliance achieved
- Answers stay complete and sworn, as FRCP 33(b)(3) requires.
- An allow-list keeps the names an interrogatory actually asks you to identify.
- Records offered under FRCP 33(d) are cleared before you point to them.
- Offline work keeps the answers inside your firm.
Anonymize interrogatory responses offline — see plans & start free →
Limitations & cautions
Answers must stay responsive. Clear PII that is not at issue, but do not strip facts the question asks for. The verification block names the signer and may stay, so review which names you remove versus keep.
Frequently asked questions
Can I cut a name the interrogatory asks me to identify?
No. That leaves the answer incomplete under Rule 33(b)(3) and invites a motion to compel. Put the required names on the allow-list, and clear only unrelated data.
What about the Rule 33(d) option to produce records?
Rule 33(d) lets you point to business records where the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for both sides. Those records still need their own pass before you specify them.
Should I keep the verification name?
Usually yes. The verifier confirms the answers under oath. An allow-list keeps required names while clearing unrelated third-party PII.