In the settlement room? NFW.soxhop411 said:
Outside the judge's chambers and the premises where discussions will occur? Why not.
Guy sounds like an idiot. The public is never admitted to, and has no right to be admitted to. Settlement proceedings.
Sons, Sam, and Horn, L.L.P.: Brady Case LEGAL ISSUES Only
- Thread starter WayBackVazquez
- Start date
Outside the judge's chambers and the premises where discussions will occur? Why not.
Guy sounds like an idiot. The public is never admitted to, and has no right to be admitted to. Settlement proceedings.
Eh--I've had judges work parties over in open court from the bench. Not in a high profile case like this, and not on the record (with a transcript). But it happens.dcmissle said:
agreed. If I'm the PA I'm really thinking hard about taking a decision. The NFL wanted this case for precedent--it could go completely the other way.
EDIT: What's at stake with a favorable ruling for these two parties? What's the incremental value, beyond this case? Anyone have a clear sense of that?
EDIT: What's at stake with a favorable ruling for these two parties? What's the incremental value, beyond this case? Anyone have a clear sense of that?
dcmissle said:
Given the quality of mainstream media coverage of this whole thing, you've typed the most terrifying sentence in this whole thread.
lambeau said:
Fingers crossed that Judge Rice and Judge Berman got along.
Limited litigation experience, but a scheduled settlement conference is usually par for the course when the scheduling order comes out, no? Isn't it merely a procedural element designed to (theoretically) reduce the number of cases that go to trial? And in practice, it often gets done over the phone and both parties lay out their offers and why the other one is unacceptable and the judge nods and says "welp, that's too bad."?
Given the directive to try and settle IMO the only possible Brady win is a 1 game suspension specifically linked to non-cooperation.Anything more than that is a loss. The Judge sounds like he doesn't want to hear this case, and he will understand and weigh the parties' respective willingness to negotiate. .So the NFL comes down a game (3) , the PA comes up a game (1), both showing good faith, so barring an extraordinarily compelling case put on by Kessler, does he middle it a 2? The problem with this is this path/precedent rewards the NFL for hard-ass stances on penalties.
I'm scratching my head.
Who's the game theory expert on this one? .
I'm scratching my head.
Who's the game theory expert on this one? .
Yes, two is almost certainly where a mediator would start, despite it being a bit arbitrary. Absent the judge putting a thumb heavily on the scale by expressing a clear preference for one side of the case or the other, my guess is that it would be hard to settle this at three or one, with the losing side feeling too hard done by to settle.bankshot1 said:
If I were mediating, I would feel pretty confident that at three Brady has nothing to lose by taking my chances with litigating, and at one, the NFL maybe feels the same way, and so two would be where I would focus. I would then see what I would have to give each side to make two stick. I would harp on the NFL losing precedent in other cases or the risk of my ruling Goodell does not have authority in these cases, in order to get some kind of exoneration language.
I pointed this out the day before Goodell's 2d ruling in the broader thread --- but to repeat here, some folks may be over-relying on the FAA. Actions to enforce or vacate labor arbitrations are governed by , and federal jurisdiction lies under, 29 U.S.C 185 , i.e., Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. It is true that federal courts often look to the FAA to resolve or interpret some issues that arise in 301 labor cases, but not necessarily. The policies of the two Acts - commercial disputes versus grievances under collectively bargained agreements, are different, in part due to labor arbitrators less often being lawyers than commercial arbitrators , at least historically. One should be a little cautious asserting that FAA precedents will automatically apply in the labor - management context.
Edit - spelling
Edit - spelling
Depends what the issue is. All the talk about the law of "the shop," for example is pure labor law, and thus all the emphasis in PA filings (and Roger's 20-pager) about previous precedents, tortured though some of the logic may be. On the other hand, in labor cases federal judges may extend greater deference to the arbitrator than might be the case in a commercial case strictly governed by the FAA. So it depends.riboflav said:
On a related topic, I have seen no commentary whatever on the fact Judge Berman has a social work degree, M.S.W., in addition to his law degree. An unusual combination, and one that might presage a heightened concern about the rights of an individual in the jaws of a giant organization (read:NFL). Has anyone begun to scrutinize his track record in past cases? 17 years on the federal bench should create something of a record.
The MSW degree was pointed out by one of our astute colleagues very early in this thread.
I am going to stereotype here because I believe I am on solid ground:
If you have a MSW, you're fucking liberal. If you are liberal, you tend to be concerned about process, especially when there is a disparity of power. And if you are liberal, you might be inclined to be less reactive to perceived warts -- I.e. Seemingly implausible stories about cell phone ditching -- cause your eye is on the greater cause. Indeed, if you are liberal, you may be more inclined to keep an open mind on the plausibility of such stories.
But here is the oddity. Liberals care less about trains running on time. They have patience with process and are more inclined to let it run its course. The "right" result is the key thing.
So why is he trying mightily to force a settlement?
To answer your question -- nobody here, unfortunately, has had time to do a deep dive on his decisions. We are too busy serving (ripping off?) paying clients. I dearly wish I had time to do it. This week has been a bear.
I am going to stereotype here because I believe I am on solid ground:
If you have a MSW, you're fucking liberal. If you are liberal, you tend to be concerned about process, especially when there is a disparity of power. And if you are liberal, you might be inclined to be less reactive to perceived warts -- I.e. Seemingly implausible stories about cell phone ditching -- cause your eye is on the greater cause. Indeed, if you are liberal, you may be more inclined to keep an open mind on the plausibility of such stories.
But here is the oddity. Liberals care less about trains running on time. They have patience with process and are more inclined to let it run its course. The "right" result is the key thing.
So why is he trying mightily to force a settlement?
To answer your question -- nobody here, unfortunately, has had time to do a deep dive on his decisions. We are too busy serving (ripping off?) paying clients. I dearly wish I had time to do it. This week has been a bear.
My best guess: He's trying to force a settlement because he's inclined to rule for the NFLPA but knows that he's running a substantial risk of being reversed in an extremely high profile case.dcmissle said:
Also, Senior Judges tend not to care so much about their reversal rate. SDNY judges, in particular, are generally happy to take a stand, come what may from the 2nd Circuit.
I believe that AP was appealed to the 8th Circuit. Don't know when oral argument is (or was).
If he is inclined to rule for the Union, Berman can put together a pretty compelling case. A devastating opinion is there to be written. Could it be reversed? Sure. Should the Second Circuit be presumed to be hell bent on reversing him? No. You have opinions all over the lot in that court. This is not a Texaco kind of case.
Ps -- Pennzoil v Texaco, 1987, I believe.
If he is inclined to rule for the Union, Berman can put together a pretty compelling case. A devastating opinion is there to be written. Could it be reversed? Sure. Should the Second Circuit be presumed to be hell bent on reversing him? No. You have opinions all over the lot in that court. This is not a Texaco kind of case.
Ps -- Pennzoil v Texaco, 1987, I believe.
Anyone been before Berman? Some judges have settlement conferences as a de facto part of their process. Might not be worth reading too much into it.
IANAL, but this is my intuition as well. It would seem to me the hard push for a settlement is a clear sign to the NFL that the current situation will not be standing. It is also a sign to the NFLPA, that they better be open to taking something reasonable if offered. I would think Judge Berman pushing for a settlement so hard right out of the gate gives him cover to overturn the arbritration decision in a rather extreme fashion, while hopefully (in his mind) forcing the two parties to resolve it on their own first.MarcSullivaFan said:
The arbitrator Peter Seitz telegraphed to MLB that they damned well ought to settle with Messrs. McNally and Messersmith before he ruled that "one year" meant "one year" in the context of the reserve clause in their contracts. MLB said FU, and the rest is history.
(Berman's a different guy doing a different job, of course, and MLB is not the NHL.)
(Berman's a different guy doing a different job, of course, and MLB is not the NHL.)
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
This is where Brady's attorneys will earn their money, as they need to convince the judge to get away completely from a suspension and instead focus on the fact that a very heavy fine is as good for the NFL, precedent-wise, as 1 or 2 missed games would be. This is very tough to do, as it's human nature to say "You want 0, they want 4, let's split the difference!"
If the judge thinks Brady's case is colorable, I could see him pressing the NFL to accept 4 game checks and an apology for destroying the phone as a settlement. If he thinks Brady's over a barrel, then the negotiation will solely focus on how many games he gets (which may mean that there'll be no settlement).
BroodsSexton asked:
"Can the PA settle this without Brady's consent?"
The answer is yes, the arbitration per the CBA is between the NFL and the PA. Brady is not a party. As others have said, as a practical matter, it is difficult to imagine the PA trying to settle over the objection of such a prominent member. But it does have that power, which is not however unlimited. The Union must represent the interest of the group as a whole, but it also by labor law owes every individual member such as Brady who is the subject of a grievance what is known as the "duty of fair representation" -- DFR for short in labor law jargon. If there were a dispute between the Union and an individual like Brady on the fairness of a settlement reached between the PA and the NFL, Brady could file a federal lawsuit against the Union seeking court intervention under the DFR doctrine.
"
"Can the PA settle this without Brady's consent?"
The answer is yes, the arbitration per the CBA is between the NFL and the PA. Brady is not a party. As others have said, as a practical matter, it is difficult to imagine the PA trying to settle over the objection of such a prominent member. But it does have that power, which is not however unlimited. The Union must represent the interest of the group as a whole, but it also by labor law owes every individual member such as Brady who is the subject of a grievance what is known as the "duty of fair representation" -- DFR for short in labor law jargon. If there were a dispute between the Union and an individual like Brady on the fairness of a settlement reached between the PA and the NFL, Brady could file a federal lawsuit against the Union seeking court intervention under the DFR doctrine.
"
Marciano490 said:
Not a lawyer, but I have been a litigant in three arbitration cases - one of which ended up as a federal lawsuit in the SDNY. I also have a reasonably close friend who is a federal judge in the SDNY and I'll ask him about Berman when I see him next. I also have lots of lawyer friends who are before Judge Berman frequently and will ask them about Berman as I see him. (It's hell being on vacation when news breaks.)
With all that as context, I believe that settlement conferences are a de facto part of the process in the SDNY. What is not standard is Berman presiding over the settlement conference - typically a magistrate will do that.
Suddenly, half the posters in the thread are sending you PMs offering to take you golfing.Average Reds said:
I have had this thought in my head but haven't put it to post yet: as one can see by watching the lawyers' responses to this case since it broke, this case is like crack for an engaged legal mind. It has questionable evidentiary issues, a high-priced hired gun "expert," ethical issues in terms of conflict of interest for Paul Weiss and Goodell, abuse of power, questions of appropriate remedy, and the issues presented by the CBA and past precedent, just off the top of my head. And it couldn't have higher profile parties.
What this says to me (and I think it is consistent with the appearance that Berman is familiar with the case, coming out ready to go), is that a federal judge is really going to engage in this if forced to rule. And I think that strongly favors the PA.
I know he's pressuring settlement, and we'll see whether Brady is eager for resolution and Goodell is willing to sober up, but there has to be substantial value to the PA in taking a decision if they think they will win. Put this in context--the NFL got slapped around in Peterson. It apparently didn't affect them very much because this process was like Peterson on steroids. Is it really credible that the NFL could skate here?
I don't think I'm settling for anything more than a $50,000 fine and a statement from Goodell that the process did not warrant the punishment imposed.
EDIT: Another random thought--the Pash email dump yesterday will make its way into the PA briefing as evidence of partiality by the league--malicious leaks and failing to correct known incorrect evidence.
What this says to me (and I think it is consistent with the appearance that Berman is familiar with the case, coming out ready to go), is that a federal judge is really going to engage in this if forced to rule. And I think that strongly favors the PA.
I know he's pressuring settlement, and we'll see whether Brady is eager for resolution and Goodell is willing to sober up, but there has to be substantial value to the PA in taking a decision if they think they will win. Put this in context--the NFL got slapped around in Peterson. It apparently didn't affect them very much because this process was like Peterson on steroids. Is it really credible that the NFL could skate here?
I don't think I'm settling for anything more than a $50,000 fine and a statement from Goodell that the process did not warrant the punishment imposed.
EDIT: Another random thought--the Pash email dump yesterday will make its way into the PA briefing as evidence of partiality by the league--malicious leaks and failing to correct known incorrect evidence.
Great post.tedseye said:
Following up on the post you were responding to, I think more likely to be an issue is Brady being willing to take a settlement the union is unwilling to accept. Although most grievance settlements are made on a non-precedent basis, I wouldn't be surprised if the league refused to do so. And any suspension or substantial fine would be bad precedent for membership as a whole.
I've had this issue come up several times in settling an employment discrimination lawsuit where there was also a grievance pending over the same facts. The union always wants triple reassurance that the Plaintiff/member won't sue them later (this is a whacky concern given that the Plaintiff/member is represented by counsel) and that their withdrawal of the grievance is non precedential.
Edit: To clarify, I don't think this is a likely scenario, just a lot more likely than the union settling over Brady's objection.
I was a little surprised when I read Kessler's response and counterclaim yesterday how little of that stuff is making its way into the case so far. Lots of the stuff that we regard as the red meat of the case -- the leak, and all the other indicators of a league out to get the team and Brady -- is really dowplayed. This is kind of consistent with the agreement to proceed on the papers without extended discovery. There's a bit of legal dogma that if you let a judge come to his own conclusion about bias or bad faith, he will be much more strongly in your corner than if you hit him over the head with it with extravagant allegations claiming to know what is in another person's heart or mind. Maybe that's Kessler's thinking here.BroodsSexton said:
Kessler is really focused on and honed in much more on structural bias issues and notice. He is agruing that prior cases -- especially Peterson -- are controlling and dispositive, and that the NFL is bound by them.
On this last point, he's arguing a doctrine called "collateral estoppel," which says that when you lose on an issue in one forum, you can't relitigate it another forum. He's saying the NFL lost on the notice issue in Peterson -- you can't impose discipline on non-noticed conduct -- and that's dispositive here. My initial reaction was that he was putting a lot of eggs in that basket. The NFL will try to distinguish Peterson legally and factually to get out from under colatteral estoppel.
Kessler added a section to the New York Counterclaim (paragraphs 51-64) called "The NFL's Recent History of Imposing Player Discipline That Violates the CBA and is Subsequently Overturned".
I assume as is suggested above he is reiterating the Doty precedent since he is no longer talking to Doty and the others because Berman doesn't have the historical memory Doty does.
Plus he gets to talk about Rice and Judge Jones' opinion of Goodell for five paragraphs (53-57).
BTW, as a legal point, the NFL Appeal of Doty's Peterson decision is in conference with a Magistrate Judge; Kessler says Doty is nevertheless binding because the NFL did not get an injunction to prevent it being in force.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/07/31/document-tom-brady-counterclaim-against-nfl/ndk4DOTBJCEopmx6qmXXCL/story.html
I assume as is suggested above he is reiterating the Doty precedent since he is no longer talking to Doty and the others because Berman doesn't have the historical memory Doty does.
Plus he gets to talk about Rice and Judge Jones' opinion of Goodell for five paragraphs (53-57).
BTW, as a legal point, the NFL Appeal of Doty's Peterson decision is in conference with a Magistrate Judge; Kessler says Doty is nevertheless binding because the NFL did not get an injunction to prevent it being in force.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/07/31/document-tom-brady-counterclaim-against-nfl/ndk4DOTBJCEopmx6qmXXCL/story.html
PaulinMyrBch said:
Interesting read there, he seems to think a settlement will happen. My question is who is going to blink first, will TB12 take a reduced suspension or will the NFL live with a big fine?
Interesting take from McCann's blog on huge differences in "evident partiality" (arbitrator bias) standards in 2nd vs 8th circuit: in Minnesota you have to show "improper motives" and obvious "prejudice " in the award--a higher bar.
The author, Daniel Wallach, states that in combination with Minnesota no longer recognizing "manifest disregard of the law" by the arbitrator, Brady/NFLPA is much better off in SDNY:
"The NFL may have unwittingly ceded valuable field position to Brady and the NFLPA, an ironic turn of events given the league's brazen forum-shopping strategy." LOL.
http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2015/08/another-home-field-advantage-for-tom.html
The author, Daniel Wallach, states that in combination with Minnesota no longer recognizing "manifest disregard of the law" by the arbitrator, Brady/NFLPA is much better off in SDNY:
"The NFL may have unwittingly ceded valuable field position to Brady and the NFLPA, an ironic turn of events given the league's brazen forum-shopping strategy." LOL.
http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2015/08/another-home-field-advantage-for-tom.html
I still think it is very hazardous to guess the judge's tilt. But if this does not settle before the parties are ordered to appear, there will come a moment when he says, "The great thing about settlement is that you have some control of the outcome. Obviously, if I have to rule, I'll rule."grsharky7 said:
When that moment comes, the League's lawyers will be gulping harder than the Union's, I think.
Agree with Florio that the judge is entirely up to speed on the issues. A 15-page double space memo can say a lot, but it can't say everything, and it probably can't say everything that needs to be said. Tough choices need to be made on what goes into it, and how that stuff is articulated.
That's a lean mean document, and one has to think that J Berman has thoroughly digested the filings to date and has his law clerks working this weekend on things he wants to probe.
I know it's never simple when it comes to the law but I'm trying to understand the NFLs case. Basically what they are saying is that because of the CBA they have the right to be in control of the gathering of evidence, demand anything from the other side, interpret that evidence however they want, punish the other side without notification or precedent and then be in charge of the appeal of whatever that punishment is (during which time they can use new evidence to uphold the punishment)? I don't mean to ask this in a snarky way. I'm wondering if that is what the CBA says. Because it it's not what the CBA says then I have a hard time seeing how any nuetral judge can see this process as anything but the shit show it is. The evidence of wrongdoing is very very thin, Brady was extremely cooperative and there are emails from wells saying "keep the phone. I don't need the phone." If I was writing the script for this the judge (played by Joe Pechi) would have everyone in the courtroom to argue their sides and then just call a halt to everything and spend five minutes berating the NFL and Goodell for being such unapologetic assholes. Music swells, the end.
Not that it's a particularly important legal point for this case (yet), but people keep repeating the bolded, and it's not the complete truth. Yes, Wells said Brady could keep the phone, but he wanted the *contents* of it. I have yet to see anything that confirms Brady's team backed up the texts before recycling the phone, so they essentially destroyed the information Wells said he wanted. They are being coy when they say that they shared all of its data, when they are only talking about call/text records, not the actual content.Punchado said:
I don't think people on this board are lying when they make statements like this...I just think they are seeing what they want to see when they read those quotes through red, white, and blue glasses.
djbayko said:
Yes, but Brady's position is that all the relevant communication with any league/team relevant parties is accounted for because Wells had the phones of McNally, Jastremski, Schoenfeld and others and that the list of messages didn't show evidence of other, unaccounted for conversations. The league wanted the content so they could see if Brady talked to his father, friends etc. regarding this issue. It seems like an overreach, but what do I know, IANAL.
Not quite. Wells wouldn't have other player phones for example. None of us know what the search terms were, but Brady said the league could go get the missing texts, so he obviously feels that they weren't all in his possession. The McNally / Jastremski texts were in his possession, yes (minus 3 new ones).burstnbloom said:
But that's tangential to the point that people are trying to say Wells didn't want the phone. I didn't want to make a big deal out of it - I just wanted to clarify.
Also, since you said "IANAL", I am not making a legal argument here. It just happened to be said in this thread.
djbayko said:
Any team issued phone was subject to a search but players do not get team issued phones and personal phones are off limits. They can ask for them but they are never getting them.
The crux of the case seems to be whether suspension for broad "conduct detrimental" can be invoked for either 1)'general awareness" of equipment malfeasance by others 2) refusal to yield text messages
or 3) escalated charges of "participation in a scheme" and evidence "destruction," which were introduced only during the appeal process.
First, can you add to charges during an appeal?
But most important, Player Policy specifies a FINE for equipment tampering, including stickum,the closest analogy; and also for failure to cooperate--Goodell ignores this only to increase the penalty.
Therefor I think the NFLPA will urge Brady not to accept any suspension, he won't cop to equipment tampering, and the judge will tell them to agree on a fine for noncooperation before he calls Goodell's conduct detrimental.
I guess the judge looks just at the law, but I like TB's chances of helping his case with his deferential manner and ability to perform under pressure vs the wooden, stubborn demeanor Goodell exhibits at press conferences.
or 3) escalated charges of "participation in a scheme" and evidence "destruction," which were introduced only during the appeal process.
First, can you add to charges during an appeal?
But most important, Player Policy specifies a FINE for equipment tampering, including stickum,the closest analogy; and also for failure to cooperate--Goodell ignores this only to increase the penalty.
Therefor I think the NFLPA will urge Brady not to accept any suspension, he won't cop to equipment tampering, and the judge will tell them to agree on a fine for noncooperation before he calls Goodell's conduct detrimental.
I guess the judge looks just at the law, but I like TB's chances of helping his case with his deferential manner and ability to perform under pressure vs the wooden, stubborn demeanor Goodell exhibits at press conferences.
I get that - everyone gets that. I'm not sure what you're arguing against anymore.jsinger121 said:
The original comment was correcting the belief that Wells didn't want the phone. That's disingenuous because he did want the content on the phone. Period.
I don't think a settlement is especially likely here. I just don't see what a settlement that both sides could accept would look like. Goodell just issued his decision. No new facts are likely to come to light before settlement talks begin. The NLFPA's argument is cogent, but is mostly a rehash of the arguments made before that Goodell rejected. It's not a surprise that the NFLPA went to court - Goodell knew they were going to do that. Goodell issued his decision anyway, so clearly the NFL thinks it's defensible.
Further, one of the key benefits of many settlements, confidentiality is missing here. We're all going to know if Brady is suspended or not. It's not just a transfer of dollars in the background somewhere, since most people seem to think neither Brady nor the NFL care a fine. The fact that the parties seem to view the punishment as mostly binary also matters here. It's hard to "find room to give" in this situation.
Without any facts on the ground changing, and without confidentiality, I'm not sure why either part would settle. I guess if you find a way to break the binary nature of the suspension/no-suspension outcome, it could be done, but I don't know what that is. No suspension, but a public mea culpa where Brady admits he intentionally destroyed the phone?
Further, one of the key benefits of many settlements, confidentiality is missing here. We're all going to know if Brady is suspended or not. It's not just a transfer of dollars in the background somewhere, since most people seem to think neither Brady nor the NFL care a fine. The fact that the parties seem to view the punishment as mostly binary also matters here. It's hard to "find room to give" in this situation.
Without any facts on the ground changing, and without confidentiality, I'm not sure why either part would settle. I guess if you find a way to break the binary nature of the suspension/no-suspension outcome, it could be done, but I don't know what that is. No suspension, but a public mea culpa where Brady admits he intentionally destroyed the phone?
Is it safe to assume that since being appointed, Berman has gone on to read the Wells report, the AEI report, In Context, etc, as further research or education on all the matters at play (presuming he hadnt already read them for whatever reason) or is he more focused on the procedural machinations/labor law issues?
Edit: I assume he has read some based on his "scorched earth" comments, but would be continue further research?
Edit: I assume he has read some based on his "scorched earth" comments, but would be continue further research?
bowiac said:
I imagine the NFL would be inclined to settle if they get the feeling that they're going to lose and not just lose, but get reamed out in the process. They would lose in their own backyard, a place where they chose to fight and a place where future fights with the PA are likely to occur. If Goodell wants more and more power, losing like this is not a way to get it.
EDIT: The problem, of course, is that Goodell could save a little face by spinning the narrative if they settle. The judge made us reconsider and I'm a big boy and decided the judge had a point, blah blah. However, would Goodell really want a settlement that involves no suspension? Goodell would have to choose - maintaining as much power as he can and survive to fight another day versus his pride. For it will be much tougher for Goodell to spin the narrative if the settlement includes no suspension.
If Berman is inclined to rule against the NFL, I have to imagine that Goodell really never thought it was possible for as you can see he really is in a tough spot having to choose between his ego (no caving to Brady for risk of embarrassment) and his ego (retaining most of his power).
I don't see a huge difference between Goodell losing in court outright and Goodell just backing down via settlement by dropping the suspension. If Goodell backs down as result of a persuasive filing by the NFLPA, he's lost in his own backyard whether it has Berman's signature on it or not.
This thing was never about Goodell trying to expand his powers over the dead body of the CBA. In my mind, this starts with the Rice fiasco when Goodell found himself on the wrong side of public opinion. I think that for an NFL commissioner, it's not as important to mete justice as it is to give the appearance of meting justice in accordance with public opinion. For Goodell in particular, it was vitally important to be on the right side of public opinion and mete a punishment that was going to satisfy public sentiment. So I don't think that he minds losing in court as much. He did what he had to do to sore up his public standing as far as he is concerned, the rest is not as important.
Absolutely, I agree with everything you say. However, the truth of the matter is that Brady was not handing over his phone to Wells, and he didn't have to, so what he did with his phone after that is irrelevant. If Brady hadn't "destroyed" his phone, Wells would have still had the exact same evidence to work with.djbayko said: