In theory, in a civil Injunction against harassment, your accuser (the petitioner) has to make their case. "The plaintiff shall prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence . . ." ARPOP Rule 8. (Although the ARPOP is not law. It is only a guide.)
The "evidence" is supposed to be ONLY the material cited in the petitioner's petition.
But our blogger's personal experience and observation is that judges always allow the petitioner to introduce new evidence at your hearing, evidence you've never seen before and so aren't prepared to defend against. (In fact, in one case, cheating Judge Mary Hamm and a court clerk allowed a petitioner to slip documents into the court file! A felony!) This is violation of your Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process, as codified in the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
A professional attorney might object to new evidence not being disclosed beforehand, citing the Rules of Evidence and Rules of Civil Procedure. But dumb pro se's don't know all that, and judges don't listen to dumb pro se's anyway.
So might as well head 'em off at the pass. File this Motion. Even if it's denied, when your accuser tries to slip in new accusations against you, and you object, this will help your appeal.