In Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, the witness was asked at deposition to state with respect to each of his affirmative defenses: "all facts that support the affirmative defense"; "the identity of each witness who has knowledge of any facts supporting the affirmative defense"; and the identity of "any documents that pertain to the facts or witnesses." (Id. at pp. 1257-1258.) The Court of Appeal condemned the practice, which it referred to as asking "legal contention questions," but held the same questions could properly be asked in interrogatories. (Id. at pp. 1256, 1260.) The distinction between these discovery devices is that "'the client presumably knows the facts (although not always), but he can hardly be expected to know their legal consequences. This is what lawyers are for. ...' ." (Id. at p. 1260.) "Legal contention questions require the party interrogated to make a 'law-to-fact application that is beyond the competence of most lay persons.' . Even if such questions may be characterized as not calling for a legal opinion citation, or as presenting a mixed question of law and fact citation, their basic vice when used at a deposition is that they are unfair. They call upon the deponent to sort out the factual material in the case according to specific legal contentions, and to do this by memory and on the spot." (Id. at p. 1262.)