Phelps
Phelps v. Bishop CA2/4
Opinion
Opinion
DISCUSSION
Bishop appeals from two post-judgment orders: (1) the August 22, 2014 order granting Phelps’ motions to compel Bishop to respond to post-judgment discovery, and (2) the July 14, 2014 order granting Phelps’ motion to quash.2 He contends that the order granting Phelps’ motion to compel him to respond to post- judgment discovery violates his constitutional right to privacy. Bishop further contends that the court erred in granting Phelps’ motion to quash his subpoena of
2 Phelps contends that Bishop has forfeited his challenge to the April 15, 2014 order to deliver vehicles to the Los Angeles County Sheriff by failing to address it in his brief. We agree. (See Jones v. Jacobson (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1, 19, fn. 12 [“[I]ssues and arguments not addressed in the briefs on appeal are deemed forfeited. [Citations.]”].)
3 Phelps’ counsel because the amount of the award of attorney fees was unconscionable. The trial court’s discovery rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (Ombudsman Services of Northern California v. Superior Court (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1241.) We find Bishop’s contentions unmeritorious and therefore affirm.