Opinion ID: 1823190
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discovery and Disclosure

Text: Washington next argues that because Hill failed to properly move to inspect the election materials, which were in the possession of the attorney general's office, within ten days of the filing of the contest with the Court as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 17-15-7, her motion to inspect those materials was untimely. However, because Washington raises this argument for the first time on appeal, it is not properly before us. See Ex parte Coulliette, 857 So.2d 793 (Ala.2003). Washington further argues that Hill should have been required to provide Washington notice of the nature of the evidence as to each area of [Hill]'s allegations before Hill was allowed to examine the sealed election materials. Washington also states that such notice should be provided ten days before the trial, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 17-15-21. However, these two positions either are mutually exclusive or, to harmonize them, require discovery to take place no earlier than 10 days before the date set for trial. Compressing discovery to within 10 days of the trial is not required by the statute, and Hill did provide Washington the required notice 10 days in advance of the hearing. Consequently, we do not find that the trial court erred in failing to find that Hill did not give Washington proper notice of the evidence she intended to use to challenge the ballots.