In Mason v. Marriage & Family Center (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 537, the plaintiff claimed she became a patient of one of the defendants, a psychologist, in September 1977; he initiated a sexual relationship with her in 1983; she began suffering emotional distress in 1986 or 1987; and she first learned that her emotional distress was due to the psychologist's conduct in 1988. ( Id., at p. 540.) In response to an interrogatory as to the date of her damages, she stated, "'September 1977 to present.'" ( Id., at p. 545.) When the defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, she submitted a declaration explaining that her interrogatory response had been incorrect, and that September 1977 had merely referred to when her therapy began. (Ibid.) The appellate court held that the plaintiff could properly explain her interrogatory response: "'Admissions should not be shielded from careful examination in light of the entire record. A summary judgment should not be based on tacit admissions or fragmentary and equivocal concessions, which are contradicted by other credible evidence.' In this case Mason's explanation of her initial response to the interrogatory, viewed in light of the whole record, is credible. . . . If a trier of fact believes the relations began in 1983, the trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the initial interrogatory response was, as Mason explained in her declaration, a simple mistake." ( Mason v. Marriage & Family Center, supra, 228 Cal. App. 3d at p. 546.) Thus, Mason in no way stands for a broad principle that interrogatory responses are not binding. To the contrary, it recognizes that ordinarily they are binding.