In the discovery phase of a civil lawsuit, when a party is being questioned by the other party or the lawyer for the other party (called an Examination for Discovery), the oath or affirmation before you begin answering questions is to "tell the truth". However, when you are a witness in court the oath or affirmation before you begin answering questions is to "tell the whole truth". The reasoning behind the different oath or affirmation is that, in an Examination for Discovery, the other side is trying to get evidence to use against you, so you simply need to answer the question and then stop. However, in court, a judge is trying to get to the truth and make the right decision, so you assist the court by telling the whole truth.

1. Would it be better to have the same oath for both scenarios? What would change if this was the case?