Don't know if this should go here or in the other thread....
From Steph Stradley (
http://www.stradleylaw.com/faqs-deflategate-second-circuit-rehearing/) regarding the whole phone issue - this is in her comments section at the end:
"The "destruction of the phone" thing was a finding that Goodell made up after the appeal based on some evidence that came in, but Brady's team was never allowed to properly refute that as a spoilation issue. In my opinion, it was not spoilation in the sense normally used legally given that Wells never wanted the phone, never placed a hold on the phone, never notified the parties that the phone was going to be the key to a ball deflation case given that they already had texts from other sources.
The best evidence that has been made public suggests that Brady's lawyers asked for the authority of why Wells' should be entitled to the contents of private electronic communications, and that Wells' team didn't get back to them. Crickets. And them blammo, Brady is surprised by this fishing expedition being the crux of the punishment.
The majority opinion cobbling together a spoilation argument that Brady couldn't fully refute after his Goodell appeal decision is bizarre. There is no reason why Brady should have ever known that the phone was going to be the key to anything involving his discipline. ZERO reason. Either in the Wells Report, in Wells' comments after the Report, in the Context Report, none of it. IT IS INFURIATING THAT ONE OF THE BEST QUARTERBACKS IN THE HISTORY OF THE NFL IS BEING SUSPENDED FOUR GAMES IN PART BECAUSE OF A COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE DISCOVERY DISPUTE BETWEEN LAWYERS.
Yes, blame the lawyers. I wouldn't blame Brady's lawyer/agent because how the hades would he have known that the contents of the phone was going to be a crucial part of an equipment violation allegation. That they would ignore everything that the witnesses said, and go all in on this. It's not like he was being accused of sexually harrassing someone with d pix or whatnot.
(I am a super non-fan of the spoilation part of the Brady majority opinion. From the record, Brady had no fair notice from Wells that not providing the electronic information would be taken as an adverse inference and non-cooperation. Brady tried to remedy the issue on appeal to Goodell the best he could given the no notice. Very cooperative. Under oath. Offered all sorts of irrelevant info despite his (what turned out to be well-founded) privacy concerns. Not only was he not given credit for that, Goodell used that attempt at cooperation after the fact to manufacture an intentional spoilation case against him that was a new issue. He couldn't refute that because it was a surprise after the hearing. Then, it goes in front of Berman, where the facts are not supposed to be an issue, and it can't be propertly refuted then because technically, the legal standard for reviewing the arbitration isn't supposed to be a fact finding exercise.)"