The attorneys are supposed to review those documents for relevance and only those considered relevant are to make it into the record and neither the plaintiff nor defendant are supposed to see most of it.
That's my assumption, discovery basically lets the attorneys see "under the petticoats" but only the facts that are
relevant and
necessary (and contested even, perhaps) need to actually
get into evidence.
So greer is "somewhat right" if the 2018 document
actually is irrelevant then Hardin can look at it, see it is bullshit, and then ask the judge and greer to admit it is bullshit, and it gets stricken from the record.
But if Hardin sees something that he believes is pertinent, he can get it marked as "to be entered into ebidance" even if it doesn't immediately get put publicly on the docket.
(This is why many people settle before trial because its a way to avoid things being public even if they're pertinent - both sides end up not wanting their dirty laundry aired.)
you don't need to do inspections or anything else to buy property whether it's a house or an empty lot. that's up to the buyer and russ is looking for motels currently in operation because he thinks buying a motel to make into a brothel is a turnkey transition.
e: well, your bank may require you do to inspections and surveys but cash in hand can skip all that.
lots of stuff "required" for real estate transactions are custom, to protect one side or the other, or because the banks don't want to be taken for a ride and fucked over (I could "sell" you a plot of shit land for $1m, you get a loan for $800k, we split it and flee to cuba)
there's usually nothing preventing a landowner from selling their real estate to someone else on a napkin for whatever consideration they want, even verbal real estate contracts can be enforced (but can also be an absolute fuck) - this is why title searches are important and fun!