No? I think it's fair to assume that the flow of information is unilateral for a reason, and it's also fair to interpret evidence accordingly. One side is trying to completely control the narrative. That party needs to be treated with more scrutiny, and the party who is unable to properly produce evidence because of the other's actions needs to be afforded more leeway. Why would it not be so?

Think of it like a court. If one party didn't respond to any requests for discovery, the other party would be designated as fact in those matters where disclosure wasn't provided. This is to account for the information asymmetry.

Also, I was being somewhat terse before, I didn't mean to imply anyone should be beyond all question.