The basic idea for all of these is to communicate information to the Court. Before dealing with the specific functions and styles for each, keep in mind a few general principles. First and foremost, you are asking the Court to rule in your favor; do not attempt to command the Court. Next, be respectful to your opponent; remember that the Court had determined there is enough preliminary merit to each side of the controversy to require more information in order to resolve the dispute. Third, it is far more likely the case than not that the Court does not have any information about the controversy other than as has been presented in the petition, response and supplemental documents; do not assume that the Court knows something unless you have presented that information to the Court. Finally, the Court cares far more about the quality of the information than about the eloquence of the writing or words; be clear and complete, not circumlocutive.
BRIEFS – the basic supplemental document. Briefs are used to elaborate, or respond to, the points made in the initial petition. In the petition, it may be enough to say something like, “Constitution, Article somesuch, Section whatever, says, ‘Do this.’” In a brief, you may talk about why the document says something, how it came to be that way, why it is relevant to the matter at hand, why it is in conflict with some other document or policy, why one interpretation or implementation scheme is better than another, etc. Explain to the Court why you think the Court should interpret the rules a particular way.
INTERROGATORIES – “just the facts, please.” Interrogatories are usually used to get the details of what did and did not occur in the process of the controversy’s rising. The who, what, where, when, why and how of the matter. Do not assume that everyone is going to agree on the facts.
BILLS OF PARTICULARS – fixing a petition so the Court can get to the matter. If the initial petition is missing important information, the Court may ask petitioner to resubmit the whole petition. If only a little of the information is missing, the Court may ask for just the missing or incomplete elements, and a request for a bill of particulars will be issued by the Court. If a petitioner forgets to tell the Court the remedy sought, or is unclear concerning against whom the dispute stands, as examples, the Court might not need a whole new petition, just clarifications or additional information to get started.
ORAL ARGUMENTATION – telling your side of the story. The Court may need to have the parties explain in words, answer numerous questions, etc. The process is not designed to trick or trip up any of the parties, but to get to the key points and clarify the subtleties. Above all other things, if the Court decides there should be oral argumentation by the parties, the parties should show up ready to give oral argumentation. The parties should be ready to repeat, explain and elaborate everything in their documents to the Court on the case, as well as to respond to everything in the other parties’ documents. The parties should expect to be interrupted by the Court for questions. The Court will have little patience for extraneous material. The Court may limit the amount of time given to each side to present its arguments.