That seems like a distinction without meaning. "Rival lawyers" don't "oversee" discovery. They make requests to the judge, who decides on their validity and issues orders. It's just a formalized suggestion.
In US Federal court, rival lawyers don't make requests to the judge, they make requests of each other. The judge is merely a referee, who adjudicates disputes that arise as part of the process. Example:
Red-Team Lawyer: "Provide us with all emails from 1/1/2010 through 1/1/2020, inclusive, that include or mention [product x] or are of relevance to its research, development, production, or marketing."
Blue-Team Lawyer: "That's overly broad and many of those emails contain proprietary confidential and trade-secret information, which is protected. My client will not provide them."
Judge, intervening after objections are filed: "Counsel, under FRCP 26(b)(1), discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case. Red Team, narrow the timeframe to 2015–2020 and limit the search to emails involving R&D leads and marketing executives. Blue Team, designate confidential portions under FRCP 26(c) as 'Attorneys’ Eyes Only' and produce a privilege log for withheld items. Failure to comply may result in sanctions under FRCP 37."
Every single part of this costs money and takes time. It usually takes a judge ~1-3 months to rule on discovery disputes. Filing the dispute is non-trivial. And "designating confidential portions" can provide junior attorneys with months of work.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. But again that's semantics[1]. You ask for stuff via some mechanism, even an informal one, argue about it as necessary, and a third party adjudicator decides what you're allowed to.
Basically you're complaint here is about formality and paperwork. Which, fine. It sucks. But the fact that it exists is precisely what prevents someone from doing stuff like paying off the judge or just destroying evidence. I don't love it either but I sure as shit know which system I'd rather be living under.
[1] It's also actually wrong as a matter of pedantic fact: discovery requests are court filings and are made "to" the court, not the opposing counsel. But again, that's a distinction without meaning.
Discovery does nothing to prevent either party from destroying or withholding evidence. There are penalties if the destroying/evading party is caught, but, in order to be caught, the other side usually has to have an idea of what's missing. So, in effect, systems without discovery work just as well or better: They enable you to show the court what you know and how you know it.
"Paying off the judge" is not a systems-level problem; it's the sort of thing that has been criminal for as long as man has had legal systems. You can't point to it as an example of "legal system is good" or "legal system is broken." Doesn't work that way.
> Discovery does nothing to prevent either party from destroying or withholding evidence.
It literally criminalizes it! People go to jail and lawyers get disbarred for obstruction every year. And as a result reputable firms won't even try to dance around these things. If you're an attorney and get a subpoena or discovery request, you tell your client to freeze their backups right away and send repeated emails reminding them, then print them out and file them along with the response. This is true even if it's a ridiculous request you know you'll beat. Because you know if you fuck this up you'll lose your career.
I mean... have you ever actually talked to a corporate lawyer?
Let's stop this tail-chasing and get to the bottom of the true difference: US (and most common-law) judges are neutral arbiters, strictly opining based on what evidence is there (Adversarial System). This is not how it works in civil-law systems, especially Germanic ones (of which PRC has retained more-or-less despite its communist history), which are entrusted to discover the truth, even if it seems to favor a party, and can do things that would be very questionable in an adversarial system, such as directly calling witnesses (Inquisitorial System).
(a) Calling. The court may call a witness on its own or at a party’s request. Each party is entitled to cross-examine the witness.
(b) Examining. The court may examine a witness regardless of who calls the witness.
(c) Objections. A party may object to the court’s calling or examining a witness either at that time or at the next opportunity when the jury is not present.
