The government is constitutionally required to disclose information (not just "evidence") which is the hands of the prosecution team which is exculpatory (favorable to the defendant).
Does that mean that if they have information which is "not favorable to the defendant" that they wouldn't have to disclose it?
I can see where it would get confusing real quick.
I would also like to point out that having a written plan to do something, and doing that thing are not the same thing. We have a plan to deal with extra-terrestrial invasion, somewhere, I'm sure...
like a lot of people, I'm a bit foggy on the "meta-data" thing, but I can see a large possibility for both intentional and unintentional abuse and misuse.
Finding a document with a plan to do it is a serious wake up call, but only rock solid proof of illegality will allow anything to be done about it.
If their response to such a document is essentially "well, yes, we did write that up, kind of a "what if" study, and we never intended to implement it. It got filed, and you found it, that's all..." what can you do?
Other than watch closely from now on, or maybe seek to get the individuals responsible some other employment, without rock solid proof of actual wrong doing, not much.