it was invalid and therefore could not extend the statute of limitation period. Schultz knew of the underlying facts giving rise to his claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of trial counsel (for various alleged trial errors) no later than the conclusion of his criminal trial. Schultz was not prevented from filing post-conviction petitions asserting these claims at any time after his judgment of conviction. He had one year and forty-two days to do so. That Schultz chose not to file his póst-conviction petitions earlier because he was under the mistaken belief that the law allowed him more time to file, does not equate, as Schultz contends, to a deprivation of any reasonable opportunity to do so. Cf. Judd v. State, 148 Idaho 22, 26, 218 P.3d 1, 5 (Ct.App.2009) (<HOLDING>). If, as our Supreme Court held in Evensiosky,
holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding that not only must discovery requests be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to case but discovery requests may not be used as fishing expedition or to impose unreasonable discovery expenses on opposing party holding that a request for admission is a tool of discovery subject to discovery cutoff dates holding that while as a general matter discovery should be freely permitted  j jurisdictional discovery is justified only if the plaintiff reasonably demonstrates that it can supplement its jurisdictional allegations through discovery holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to extend discovery where no effort was made to explain why the requested discovery could not have taken place within the original discovery period