DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
30-2018-01045532·orange·Probate·Trust
Hearing todayNo tentative ruling

Horwich - Trust

Motion to Quash Service of Civil Subpoena

Hearing date
Sep 9, 2026
Department
CM08
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

RespondentHolly M. Emge
OtherRobert Horwich
OtherJeffrey Horwich

Attorneys

Holly Emgefor Respondent

Ruling

8 Horwich - Trust;

Horwich – Trust (2018-01045532) # Motion to Quash

The court does not provide a tentative ruling on Respondent Holly M. Emge’s Motion for Order Quashing Service of Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance or Alternatively for Protective Order on Production of Documents (ROA 2253) as it wishes to hear from the parties on certain issues as forth below.

By her motion, Respondent Holly Emge seeks to quash a subpoena apparently calling for her to produce certain documents. However, neither the motion nor the supporting documents present the subject subpoena for the court’s review. Accordingly, the court cannot address moving party’s assertion that the subpoena was not properly served or that the requested documents are protected by the attorney work product doctrine and/or the attorney-client privilege. Moving party should be prepared to address the absence of this critical document.

Finally, on August 6, 2026, Judge Rowe ordered Robert Horwich “to authorize the release of all billing statements regarding money paid from the trust or concerning trust litigation from Brower Law Group, Greenberg Gross, and Holly Emge, Esq. to be given to Jeffrey Horwich.” (ROA 2303, emphasis added.) The parties should be prepared to address whether that order addresses, in any fashion, the instant motion to quash

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share