Burden Shifted to Defendant in Civil Matters; possession of evidence

The defendant would not have the burden, but would have to produce certain evidence through the discovery process. The plaintiff still has burden to prove its case. Why? Because it wouldn't be fair and just to allow a plaintiff to claim the defendant owes them a million dollars and merely say they have all the evidence, so give me the million dollars unless you can prove you don't owe me it.

"Isn't the burden shifted to Defendant in civil matters when they are in possession of all the evidence that could prove or disprove of a case." -- No. Which burden are you writing about? Burden of producing evidence or burden of proof? They are different concepts and different rules apply. Plaintiff always has the burden of producing substantial evidence to support each element of each cause of action. Certain presumptions may apply in context to make that burden easier but it is never shifted to defendant. Defendant, on the other hand, has the burden of producing substantial evidence to support of its defenses.

The plaintiff always has the burden of proof for any claims which the plaintiff is pursuing. The burden does not shift to the defendant merely because the defendant possesses the evidence which the plaintiff deems necessary to prove plaintiff's case. Unfortunately, if this is a small claims court case, the plaintiff does not have the right to conduct discovery to force the defendant to produce documents. However, the plaintiff can subpoena documents necessary at the time of trial.