In litigation, the court and the parties share roles in the process of discovering case facts. The parties bear the primary responsibility or the first responsibility for discovering case facts, while the court assumes an auxiliary responsibility under specific circumstances. Evidence is a necessary means for the discovery of case facts, therefore, effective means for obtaining evidence must be provided to the parties in terms of institutional safeguards; when the parties are unable to obtain relevant evidence due to reasons not attributable to themselves, the court should provide necessary assistance to ascertain the facts of the case. When evidence falls within the scope that should be collected by the parties themselves, but is unobtainable because it is held by the opposing party or a third party outside the case, institutional arrangements should be designed to ensure that the party bearing the burden of proof can obtain such evidence. The document submission order system is designed to address this issue. As a means of expanding the parties’ ability to collect evidence, the document submission order imposes an obligation on the opposing party holding the document and a third party outside the case to submit the document. The legal basis for the obligation to submit documents is the parties’ liability for litigation cooperation and the public law obligation of third parties outside the case to assist the court in ascertaining the truth of the case. The construction of the document submission order system should take into account the protection of multiple interests and should not be set as a generalized obligation. The party bearing the burden of proof has the obligation to collect and provide evidence to prove the facts of the case. If the obligation to submit documents is generalized, it may lead to excessively aggravating the procedural obligations of the party who does not bear the burden of proof, making the imputation function of the burden of proof system ineffective, resulting in procedural injustice and a lack of a justifiable basis for judgments. Therefore, the obligation to submit documents is based on the substantive law right to information disclosure and supplemented by special provisions for discovering the true facts of the case. While strengthening the obligation of document holders to present documents, it is necessary to take into account the balance between the protection of their interests, therefore, it is essential to establish a system that exempts the obligation to submit documents under specific circumstances. Different legal consequences shall be stipulated for the different circumstances in which the party holding the document violates the order to submit documents and a third party outside the case holding the document violates the order to submit documents. When a party violates the obligation to submit documents, the regulatory effect is to presume the truth of the contents recorded in the document. Even if the party holding the document engages in conduct that obstructs evidence, it is not appropriate to presume the regulatory consequence that the facts to be proven by using the document as evidence are true, as this outcome deprives the judge of the power to evaluate the evidence. When a third party outside the case fails to comply with the order to submit a document made by the court, there is no room for application of the legal consequences that the content recorded in the document is presumed to be true. And as the system safeguard, the order for submission of documents made by the court should be used as the basis for enforcement, compelling the third party to deliver the documents.