Discovery in the legal manner, yes. This has some interesting implications, relative to the investigation. At this stage, I think responsibilty is assumed, that is, the carrier and the Manufacturer.
The focus is now on the recorders, evidence in the legal sense, and not just pro per, iow to be utilized and "reported" by involved parties. There is a new party, the French Judiciary. Ownership is not to the BEA, but to the court, I would think. I cannot imagine the Court allowing even the "appearance" of impropriety, thus the boxes must not be touched by the accused. It will be interesting to follow the role of the BEA. Friend of the Court, I would assume, now. The expense of the recovery should of course be assumed by the accused, but they should be billed at a later date, after a complete accounting has been accomplished, to remove any hint of "follow the money".
Will the Court be satisfied in allowing BEA to take possession? (Should they be found). Or will an officer of the Court establish first and primary chain of custody? Crash investigations have always seemed incestuous to me, the ultimate goal somewhat clouded by the "buddy system".
In a case where no good whatever can come from the discovery of the Truth of the matter for the players, they should be prevented from involvement in any search for evidence, excepting advice and data they possess.
Christiaan, I defer completely to your assessment of the legalities. There has been a total turn in events.