All right, been thinking about this and bouncing it off labor people. Why would Bradly destroy a phone he is not even required to hand over. Here is a theory which makes sense.
The first reaction people will have is "Brady's getting his legal advice from Aaron Hernandez...destroying your phone on the day you are talking to Ted Wells is insane! But is Brady really Hernandez stupid? He does not even have to turn it over.
Brady and his team are smart people... so the real question is why would they snub noses in such a fashion?
To get a response. What response? To get the decision centered on non-cooperation on the phone issue. Destroying something you don't even have to turn over is done for a reason knowing it is a slap in the face.
Why? Because demanding a private individual's phone is an unfair labor practice.
The Vincent decision didn't hit non-cooperation hard enough.
The NFL probably didn't even know Brady destroyed the phone until the appeal hearing. Brady could have just said "I'm not giving it to you". Instead he testifies "I destroyed it the day I went to Wells, so you aren't getting it."
Goodell loses his mind. Bases punishment on unfair labor practice. Rope-a-doped into it.
Collective bargaining agreement: court can't touch rules based interpretations. It does have jurisdiction to address unfair labor practices and violations of collective bargaining agreement. The new document today is all about the phone.
Brady's team just suckered the NFL into moving their punishment basis and report to an area which is 99.9% favorable to Brady by destroying a phone that Brady would never have been forced to turn over.