In the Matter of the Complaint of William Martz et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
In the Matter of the Complaint of
William Martz and Jane Martz,
as Owners of a Nautique Vessel,
for Limitation of Liability
Case No. 3:20-cv-00152-SLG
ORDER ON LIMITATION PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
RESPONSES
Before the Court at Docket 78 is Limitation Plaintiffs William and Jane
Martz’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. 	The motion is opposed.1 	Oral
argument was not requested and is not deemed necessary. 	For the reasons set
forth in this order, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
William and Jane Martz initiated the present action in June 2020 under the
Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 (46 U.S.C. §§ 30501–30512).2 	The Martzes’
action seeks to limit their personal liability for tort and maritime claims claimant
Andrew Horazdovsky has brought against them in Alaska state court, which is
currently stayed.3 Horazdovsky’s state court action against the Martzes arises out
1 Docket 83 (Opposition); Docket 87 (Reply).
2 Docket 1 (Complaint).
3 See Docket 1 at 3–4 (citing Horazdovsky v. Martz, No. 3AN-20-06488CI (Alaska Super. Ct.
June 4, 2020)), Docket 60. Copies of the state court complaint may be found at Dockets 1-1 and
82-1. .
Case 3:20-cv-00152-SLG Document 105 Filed 02/16/23 Page 1 of 12

Case No. 3:20-cv-00152-SLG, In the Matter of Compl. of Martz
Order Re Limitation Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Page 2 of 12
of the death of his wife, Jennifer Horazdovsky, who was struck and killed in June
2018 by a boat driven by the Martzes’ son.4
Relevant here, the Martzes served Horazdovsky with written discovery
requests on October 17, 2022.5 Horazdovsky responded,6 but the Martzes allege
that his responses are “riddled with deficiencies.” 7 	The Martzes certify that the
parties’ attorneys have met and conferred regarding the discovery dispute but have
been unable to resolve it.8 	They now seek an order compelling Horazdovsky to
produce the requested discovery.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),
[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake
in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to
relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense
of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
4 Docket 1 at 3–4.
5 Docket 78 at 6.
6 See Dockets 78-2; 78-3.
7 Docket 78 at 6.
8 Docket 78 at 6–7; see also Dockets 78-4 through 78-8 (meet-and-confer correspondence).
Case 3:20-cv-00152-SLG Document 105 Filed 02/16/23 Page 2 of 12

Case No. 3:20-cv-00152-SLG, In the Matter of Compl. of Martz
Order Re Limitation Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Page 3 of 12
The proportionality requirement, added by an amendment to the rule in 2015, is
intended “to permit discovery of that which is needed to prove a claim or defense,
but eliminate unnecessary or wasteful discovery.”9 Relevancy alone is, therefore,
no longer sufficient to obtain discovery in the absence of proportionality.
DISCUSSION
The Martzes’ motion seeks to have the Court compel Horazdovsky to
provide the following discovery:
1) The address of each location at which Andrew and Jennifer Horazdovsky
were present beginning at 6:00 a.m. on June 8, 2018 until the collision,
and the identification of every person who saw or spoke to Jennifer
Horazdovsky in the 24 hours preceding the collision (Interrogatory Nos.
1–3);
2) The identification of Jennifer Horazdovsky’s medical care providers,
counselors, therapists, pharmacists, and health insurance providers for
the ten years before her death (Interrogatory Nos. 4–5); and
3) Documents directly related to the damages claims in Horazdovsky’s state
court lawsuit against the Martzes, including medical records; billing
9 Crystal Lakes v. Bath & Body Works, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-2989-MCE-GGH, 2018 WL 533915, at
*1 (E.D. Cal. 2018) (citing John Roberts, 2015 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary (Dec.
31. 2015)), order clarified sub nom. Lakes v. Bath & Body Works LLC, No. 2:16-cv-2989 MCE
GGH, 2018 WL 1071335 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2018).
Case 3:20-cv-00152-SLG Document 105 Filed 02/16/23 Page 3 of 12

Case No. 3:20-cv-00152-SLG, In the Matter of Compl. of Martz
Order Re Limitation Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Page 4 of 12
records; 	insurance 	benefits; 	federal, 	state, 	and 	city 	tax 	returns;
employment and unemployment records; documents supporting claims
of monetary expenses, property damages, and special damages; and
authorizations to obtain medical and employment records (Request for
Production Nos. 4–14, 21–25, and 29–31).
The Court addresses each request in turn.
A. Interrogatory Nos. 1–3
In Interrogatory Nos. 1–3, the Martzes asked Horazdovsky to disclose “the
identification of witnesses to Andrew and Jennifer Horazdovsky’s activities and
events leading up to the June 2018 collision, including the addresses of each
location Mr. Horazdovsky and Ms. Horazdovsky visited on the date of the June
2018 collision and the identification of each person who saw or spoke with Ms.
Horazdovsky in the twenty-four hours preceding the June 2018 collision.”10 	The
Martzes 	assert 	that 	this 	information 	is 	relevant 	because 	it 	may 	support 	a
comparative negligence defense: “[T]he negligence of Mr. Horazdovsky and
potentially others in causing the June 2018 collision is at issue in the liability phase,
and the Martzes are entitled to discovery to support their position.” 11
10 Docket 78 at 10–11. In point of fact, Interrogatories 1 and 2 seek information regarding the
Horazdovskys’ whereabouts beginning at 6:00 a.m. on the day before the collision. See Docket
78-2 at 3.
11 Docket 78 at 11.
Case 3:20-cv-00152-SLG Document 105 Filed 02/16/23 Page 4 of 12

Case No. 3:20-cv-00152-SLG, In the Matter of Compl. of Martz
Order Re Limitation Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Page 5 of 12
Horazdovsky maintains that the information sought is irrelevant because
“[t]he comparative negligence of Andrew Horazdovsky and others is not at issue in
this case.”12 Horazdovsky reasons that any comparative negligence on his part is
only relevant to his state court lawsuit, not to this case, because if he meets his
initial burden under the Limitation of Liability Act to show that the Martzes caused
his loss, then the only way the Martzes can limit their liability is by “proving [the
Martzes’ son’s] conduct was outside their privity or knowledge,” not by proving
comparative negligence.13
The Martzes reply that Horazdovsky’s potential comparative fault is relevant
because it is “bound up” with whether the Martzes or their son are liable for
Horazdovsky’s alleged losses, the determination of which is the initial step of the
two-step process for a Limitation of Liability action.14 	Citing other cases in which
they describe federal courts as adjudicating comparative fault at the liability step
of a Limitation of Liability action, the Martzes maintain that “Mr. Horazdovsky’s
negligence (and potentially that of others) in causing the June 2018 collision is at
issue during the liability phase, and discovery requests surrounding the underlying
events leading up to the June 2018 collision are relevant and probative.”15
12 Docket 83 at 5.
13 Docket 83 at 5–6.
14 Docket 87 at 3.
15 Docket 87 at 3–4 (first citing Houghtailing v. Crown Equip. Corp., No. 11-cv-05040-TEH, 2015
Case 3:20-cv-00152-SLG Document 105 Filed 02/16/23 Page 5 of 12

Case No. 3:20-cv-00152-SLG, In the Matter of Compl. of Martz
Order Re Limitation Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Page 6 of 12
The 	Court 	finds 	that 	the 	information 	the 	Martzes 	seek 	regarding 	the
Horazdovskys’ whereabouts in the hours preceding the collision is relevant to this
case. At the first step of a Limitation of Liability action, a district court determines
whether any liability exists on the limitation plaintiff’s part.16 	Horazdovsky’s state
court complaint asserts claims against the Martzes under Alaska state tort law for
boatowners’ vicarious liability, negligence, negligence per se, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, recklessness, battery
and assault, and negligent entrustment.17 It also asserts claims under federal
admiralty law for boatowners’ liability, operator’s negligence liability, negligence per
se, owner and operator’s recklessness liability, and negligent entrustment.18 	It is
possible that comparative negligence could be a defense to limitation plaintiffs’
WL 1090386, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2015) (granting defendant’s motion for judgment as a
matter of law in personal injury case); then citing In re Compl. of AMF, 543 F. Supp. 431, 433
(S.D.N.Y. 1982) (lifting injunction of state court proceeding except as to entry of judgment and
enforcement of any recovery); then citing Bates v. Merritt Seafood, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 915, 917
(D.S.C. 1987) (findings of fact after bench trial of slip and fall on vessel); and then citing N.
Queen Inc. v. Kinnear, 298 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding captain’s death caused by his own
negligence, thereby relieving vessel owner of liability).
16 Hechinger (In re Compl. of Hechinger) v. Caskie, 890 F.2d 202, 207 (9th Cir. 1989); see also,
e.g., Carr v. PMS Fishing Corp., 191 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1999) (“[Limitation of Liability]
proceedings lend themselves to a bifurcated analysis. First, the court must determine whether
negligence or unseaworthiness caused the accident. Second, the court must determine whether
the shipowner was privy to, or had knowledge of, the causative agent (whether negligence or
unseaworthiness).”) (citations omitted).
17 Docket 1-1 at 8–13.
18 Docket 1-1 at 8–13.
Case 3:20-cv-00152-SLG Document 105 Filed 02/16/23 Page 6 of 12

Case No. 3:20-cv-00152-SLG, In the Matter of Compl. of Martz
Order Re Limitation Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Page 7 of 12
liability for at least some of those claims.19 	Consequently, matters that may bear
on whether the Horazdovskys were comparatively negligent regarding the 2018
incident are relevant to a “claim or defense” in this action.20 Further, the information
sought in Interrogatory Nos. 1 through 3 is proportional to the needs of this case,
as it is limited to the time just preceding the collision. 	Therefore, the Martzes’
motion to compel Horazdovsky to answer Interrogatory Nos. 1–3 will be granted.
B. Interrogatory Nos. 4–5
In Interrogatory Nos. 4–5, the Martzes asked Horazdovsky to identify
Jennifer 	Horazdovsky’s 	medical 	care 	providers, 	counselors, 	therapists,
pharmacists, and health insurance providers for the ten years preceding her death
in 2018.21 	Horazdovsky objected, claiming that the interrogatories “[are] not
relevant to any party’s claim or defense” and “appear[] to be a deliberate effort to
acquire information related to the parties’ claims or defenses in [the state court
19 Under Alaska law, comparative negligence is not a total defense to a claim, unlike the older
common law doctrine of contributory negligence. See Kaatz v. State, 540 P.2d 1037, 1046–51
(Alaska 1975) (abandoning the traditional contributory negligence doctrine in favor of a
comparative negligence approach); AS § 09.17.060 (“In an action based on fault seeking to
recover damages for injury or death to a person or harm to property, contributory fault
chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionately the amount awarded as compensatory
damages for the injury attributable to the claimant's contributory fault, but does not bar
recovery.”). However, comparative negligence is at least a partial defense, as some courts have
recognized in analogous situations. See, e.g., Miller v. Pac. Trawlers, Inc., 131 P.3d 821, 833–
34, 834 n.17 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
21 Docket 78-2 at 4–5.
Case 3:20-cv-00152-SLG Document 105 Filed 02/16/23 Page 7 of 12

Case No. 3:20-cv-00152-SLG, In the Matter of Compl. of Martz
Order Re Limitation Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Page 8 of 12
case] in violation” of this Court’s stay order.22 	The Martzes now move to compel
Horazdovsky 	to 	answer 	these 	interrogatories, 	asserting 	that 	the 	requested
information is relevant to the issue of damages, which is a prima facie element of
a negligence claim that Horazdovsky must establish, thereby making Jennifer
Horazdovsky’s health at issue.23 	Horazdovsky responds that the information
sought may have relevance as to the amount of damages, but that issue is not
relevant in this limitations action, as the value of Horazdovsky’s claims will be
determined in the Alaska Superior Court case and the Martzes do not dispute that
Horazdovsky’s damages exceed the value of the Nautique.24
The Court finds that Jennifer Horazdovsky’s death certainly caused damage
to Andrew Horazdovsky, the Horazdovskys’ minor child, and the Estate of Jennifer
Horazdovsky; further, the amount of such damages exceeds the value of the
Nautique. 	As 	such, 	the 	extensive 	information 	sought 	regarding 	Jennifer
Horazdovsky’s ten-year medical history that appears aimed at quantifying the
amount of damages in this limitation action is of marginal, if any, relevance, and
clearly not proportionate to the needs of this case. 	Accordingly, the motion to
compel as to Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 5 will be denied.
22 Docket 78-2 at 4–5 (citing Docket 60).
23 Docket 78 at 12–13.
24 Docket 83 at 7; see also Docket 1 at 4, ¶ 13 (“Upon information and belief, the claimed
damages are substantially in excess of the value of the Nautique . . . .”).
Case 3:20-cv-00152-SLG Document 105 Filed 02/16/23 Page 8 of 12

Case No. 3:20-cv-00152-SLG, In the Matter of Compl. of Martz
Order Re Limitation Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Page 9 of 12
C. Request for Production Nos. 4–14, 21–25, and 29–31
In Request for Production Nos. 4–14, 21–25, and 29–31, the Martzes asked
Horazdovsky to produce the Horazdovskys and, where applicable, their minor
child’s, medical records; billing records; insurance benefits; federal, state, and city
tax 	returns; 	employment 	and 	unemployment 	records; 	documents 	supporting
claims of monetary expenses, property damages, and special damages; as well
as 	the 	necessary 	authorizations 	to 	obtain 	these 	medical 	and 	employment
records.25
Horazdovsky objects, maintaining that the requested information is not
relevant to any party’s claim or defense in this case and appears to be to seek
information only relevant to the stayed state court proceeding.26
The Martzes’ motion asserts that “[a]ssuming arguendo the Martzes do not
prevail on limiting liability, the Martzes are entitled to litigate what the judgment
should be.”27 	But to the extent the Martzes intend to assert that they will litigate
“what the judgment should be” in this Court rather than in Alaska state court, their
assertion is mistaken. 	In the present case, as in all Limitation of Liability Act
actions, the Court will simply determine “whether negligence or unseaworthiness
25 Docket 78-3 at 4–12, 16–18, 20–22.
26 Docket 78-3 at 4–12, 16–18, 20–22.
27 Docket 78 at 13.
Case 3:20-cv-00152-SLG Document 105 Filed 02/16/23 Page 9 of 12

Case No. 3:20-cv-00152-SLG, In the Matter of Compl. of Martz
Order Re Limitation Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Page 10 of 12
caused the accident” and, if so, “whether the shipowner was privy to, or had
knowledge of, the causative agent (whether negligence or unseaworthiness).” 28
This action will not involve a determination of the amount of damages, except as
necessary to determine whether the Martzes are liable to Horazdovsky at all.
Therefore, the information sought in Request for Production Nos. 4–14, 21–25,
and 29–31 has little, if any, relevance to any claim or defense in this case.
Furthermore, the Martzes’ citation to the procedural rules for admiralty
claims is unavailing. 29 	The Martzes assert that they are entitled to discovery
information regarding damages by virtue of Rule F(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims, which provides
that in limitation-of-liability actions, each claim “shall specify the facts upon which
the claimant relies in support of the claim, the items thereof, and the dates on which
the same accrued.” The Martzes assert that Rule F(5)’s references to “facts” and
“items” entail specific amounts of damages and therefore entitle them to discovery
regarding Horazdovsky’s claims for damages in the state court case.30 	But little
caselaw exists to support the Martzes’ assertion. Federal courts have expressed
uncertainty as to the meaning of these terms in Rule F(5).31 Rule F is a codification
28 Carr, 191 F.3d at 4.
29 See Docket 78 at 13–14.
30 Docket 78 at 13–14.
31 See, e.g., In re Triple Screw Marine Towing, Inc., Civ. A. No. 93-3182, 1994 WL 151101, at
Case 3:20-cv-00152-SLG Document 105 Filed 02/16/23 Page 10 of 12

Case No. 3:20-cv-00152-SLG, In the Matter of Compl. of Martz
Order Re Limitation Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Page 11 of 12
of historical procedures created for implementing the Limitation of Liability Act.32
Rule F(5)’s reference to “facts” and “items” is apparently a “somewhat heightened”
version of the pleading requirements in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).33 As
such, the Court interprets its references to “facts” and “items” to refer to specificity
requirements in Limitation of Liability Act claimants’ claim filings, not to confer a
right to discovery of information that bears little, if any, relevance to the ultimate
determination this Court is required to make.
For these reasons, the Martzes’ motion to compel Horazdovsky to comply
with Requests for Production Nos. 4–14, 21–25, and 29–31 is denied.34
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in this order, Limitation Plaintiffs William and Jane
Martz’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. 	The Motion is granted with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 1–3
*1–2 (E.D. La. Mar. 31, 1994) (“Even assuming that the reference to the ‘items thereof’ in
Supplemental Rule F(5) is to the items of damages sought by the claimant, I do not consider the
Notice of Claim’s deficiency in this respect grounds for dismissing their claim.”).
32 In re Am. River Transp. Co., 728 F.3d 839, 841 (8th Cir. 2013).
33 Triple Screw Marine Towing, 1994 WL 151101, at *1.
34 Because the Court resolves this dispute on relevancy and proportionality grounds, it does not
reach the Martzes’ arguments regarding Horazdovsky’s assertion of doctor-patient privilege.
See Docket 78 at 14.
Case 3:20-cv-00152-SLG Document 105 Filed 02/16/23 Page 11 of 12

Case No. 3:20-cv-00152-SLG, In the Matter of Compl. of Martz
Order Re Limitation Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Page 12 of 12
and denied in all other respects. Horazdovsky shall provide complete answers to
Interrogatory Nos. 1 through 3 within 14 days of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 16 th day of February 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:20-cv-00152-SLG Document 105 Filed 02/16/23 Page 12 of 12