According to Wells:
We wanted two buckets of information. We wanted him to take the phone, look at the text messages, e-mails, run the search terms that we set forth and give us any communications with anybody about deflation or inflation. So if Mr. Brady had talked to an assistant coach or talked to the second-team quarterback about these issues, we would get that material.
We then asked him for all communications regardless of subject matter, I think, between Mr. Jastremski and McNally, regardless of — and Schoenfeld, regardless of the search terms. So we wanted two buckets of information. And I know, I didn’t get — okay, I will stop.
All of this seems reasonable. I understand Brady's decision not to provide it--I wouldn't have either. His mistake was not failing to provide this information but rather disposing of the phone. Whether the CBA required him to turn it over or not is an irrelevant technicality. In law, there is something called the clean hands doctrine. Basically, when you are seeking that equity be done, you better be clean yourself. This is not quite on point to the Brady case, but if you are going to argue to a court that you were the victim of an unfair investigation, like Brady has, it looks terrible to dispose of evidence potentially relevant to the investigation you are claiming was unfair.