I honestly hope this was a joke. First, this is going to be a civil trial, not a criminal one :) The goal of the civil system is definitely not to find truth, only settle disputes "fairly". This often does not require truth. This is why the evidentiary rules/burdens in a civil trial are very different.

Even in the criminal justice system, the goal of the criminal justice system has never been to find truth, only produce justice or deterrence.

The last part sounds a bit like a tautology, but essentially, most criminal justice systems were created with the knowledge they can't figure out what really happened in most cases (take murder, where at least one person who knows what happened is dead, and another stands accused), so the goal is usually not to find the truth. Justice is easy, truth is hard.

There are also plenty of cases where truth is irrelevant to the aim of deterrence. It doesn't matter if you catch everyone who is speeding, or even that everyone you ticket was speeding, your goal is usually to get a high enough rate of catching actual speeders to deter the conduct.

I would argue the opposite. Truth is not easy, but it is much easier than justice. Truth exists in a definite manner. Justice has to be decided and is itself perceived by many different parties in a gamut of relevant shades (what was justice for other similar cases, what will be fair etc.) Furthermore, Justice is questioned at every other decision making moment. If I was cutting everybody's hand if they steal and then decide to just cut a finger, it will not be just to the people who lost their hands.

Edit: I am referring to the canonical definition of justice, not the bureaucratic one.