California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court, 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 95 (Cal. App. 1998):
Two constructions of the term "party" as used in Section 2030(g) are possible. What might be termed a strictly literal construction is that the term "party" was intended to be strictly limited to the real party in interest. Here, that would be plaintiff herself. Clearly the guardian ad litem is not the real party in interest; no judgment can be entered either for or against the guardian. (Cf.Code Civ. Proc., 367; Sarracino v. Superior Court (1974) 13 Cal.3d 1, 13, 118 Cal.Rptr. 21, 529 P.2d 53 ["A guardian ad litem who appears for an incompetent person in an action or proceeding does not thereby become a party to that action or proceeding any more than the incompetent person's attorney of record is a party."].) This "strictly literal" construction--construing the term "party" to exclude a guardian--leaves no one available to respond to interrogatories.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.