Prof. Peter Friedman of Case Law School draws an interesting analogy, which I'd like to share with you, between an over-inclusive piece of writing and a fictional gargantuan map imagined by Jorge Luis Borges. He quotes Borges:
In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.
Jorge Luis Borges, On Exactitude in Science (translated by Andrew Hurley). Prof. Friedman comments, "Such a map is, of course, a duplicate of that territory, and thus useless as a map, much as an over-inclusive account of facts and law render a memo useless to its reader."
It shouldn't be surprising that lawyers and other writers make this mistake. After all, we received most of our writing lessons in school, and school at every level rewarded us for writing everything we knew about the topic. In the real world, we need to unlearn that lesson. Out here, it's not about showing what you know; it's about giving the readers what they need.