By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
A recent deposition in a federal lawsuit involving a long-running Maryland custody dispute is drawing new attention to the allegations that led to arrest warrants, protective orders, and years of separation between a father and his son.
The February 2026 deposition of Maryland attorney Sarah Hornbeck—a defendant in the federal case Reichert v. Hornbeck—contains testimony that attorneys for the plaintiff argue undermines key claims made during earlier protective-order proceedings.
The case, currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, centers on allegations that accusations made during a 2020 protective-order filing led to criminal charges and significant custody consequences for the plaintiff, Jeffrey Reichert.
Allegations of “Escalating Threats”
In earlier court filings, Hornbeck described Reichert as making “escalating threats” that placed her in fear of serious bodily harm. Those claims became the basis for seeking protective orders and filing related criminal complaints.
But during questioning in the deposition, Hornbeck was asked to identify the specific statements that allegedly created that fear.
When asked directly what Reichert said that constituted a threat, she testified that she could not recall his words.
The exchange has become one of the focal points of the federal lawsuit, which alleges malicious prosecution and misuse of the legal process.
Evidence Questions Raised
Another area of questioning focused on the communications Hornbeck relied on when filing charges in 2020.
During the deposition, attorneys asked whether she could identify the emails, texts, or phone calls that supported the allegations.
She acknowledged that she was unable to identify those communications during the deposition and confirmed that she did not have phone records with her when the accusations were initially made.
Those statements are now likely to play a central role in the federal case, where Reichert alleges that the accusations lacked sufficient factual support.
Disclosure to the Court
Protective orders in Maryland are often issued based on sworn statements provided to a court commissioner.
During the deposition, Hornbeck was also asked whether she disclosed certain prior legal orders and relevant history between the parties when seeking the protective order.
In several exchanges, she testified that she did not recall what information had been disclosed to the commissioner at the time.
The issue of what information the court received—and whether the disclosures were complete—may become a key issue in the federal litigation.
Broader Custody Dispute
The underlying dispute between the parties has been ongoing for more than a decade and has involved multiple court proceedings related to custody and protective orders.
According to filings referenced in the federal lawsuit, Reichert has had limited to no contact with his son in recent years despite earlier custody arrangements.
The federal case now seeks damages based on claims that the accusations and resulting legal actions were improperly initiated.
Hornbeck has denied wrongdoing and continues to contest the allegations in the case, while continuing to refuse Reichert access to their child.
A Deposition Now at the Center of the Case
Depositions often become pivotal moments in civil litigation, particularly when they involve sworn testimony about the events that triggered criminal complaints or court orders.
Attorneys involved in the case are expected to rely heavily on the transcript as the federal lawsuit moves forward.
The deposition raises questions that the court will ultimately have to resolve, including what evidence existed at the time the accusations were made and how those claims were presented to the court.
Why This Case Matters
At stake in this case is far more than a single custody dispute. The lawsuit centers on whether Maryland’s protective-order system can be used to effectively strip a parent of custody and contact with their child based on allegations that were never proven in court. According to the filings, Jeff Reichert was arrested and jailed in 2020 after accusations that ultimately resulted in more than two dozen criminal charges being dropped or dismissed.
Despite the collapse of those charges, the legal fallout reshaped the custody situation and led to years of separation between father and son. The complaint argues that repeated protective-order filings and related court actions were used to circumvent an existing custody order that had previously granted Reichert primary custody of the child.
If the courts ultimately agree that the protective-order process was misused, the implications could extend far beyond this case. The outcome could determine how Maryland courts handle allegations in high-conflict custody disputes—and whether the legal safeguards designed to protect victims can also be used to dismantle parental rights before the underlying accusations are ever proven.
Read the Full Investigation
A detailed analysis of the deposition transcript, including key exchanges and credibility issues raised during the questioning, is available in the full investigative reports published by Thunder Report.
➡ Read the latest report:
“I Don’t Recall: The Deposition That Could Reshape a Maryland Malicious Prosecution Case.”
➡ Read the full reports and investigation analysis:
The Reichert Files
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.