Good post. I take issue with some of it though. Wells asked for specific texts, like all texts between Brady and a certain person during a certain time frame and all texts that included the search terms. Brady turned over data from a number of devices that were run against the search terms, but he failed to provide anything from the phone that was active during the most relevant period. So, his argument was not "I didn't turn over the the texts on that phone because they were not relevant", but rather "I didn't turn them over because I didn't have the phone, because I got rid of it." This may seem like a small difference, but it is quite different from what you are suggesting. And it looks bad, to be honest.
Also, there is nothing per se illegal about a private employer asking an employee to see their texts or other information if the employer deems it relevant to an inquiry into their conduct, and nothing wrong with disciplining that employee if he fails to comply. As an example, If I, the private employer, think you are looking at porn on your phone at work, I can ask you to provide your internet history to me and fire you if you refuse. Subject to the terms of any employment contract, I can fire you for any reason, or for no reason.
And the "details" that you claim not to know are very important here. Brady provided some texts from phones that were not active during the relevant timeframe, but decided to treat the data on the phone that was active during the relevant period quite differently--disposing of it and then offering to give a worthless list of people he spoke with. Contrary to what you are suggesting, the texts could not be recovered from the phone company for that period, and, yes, it is impractical to try to convince someone, over whom the NFL has no power to compel production of evidence or punish in any way, to provide evidence out of the goodness of their heart.