[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> I see you edited your response after re-reading the summarization.

Just to be clear, the summary is not convincing. I do understand the idea but none of the evidence presented so far suggests that was the reason. The court expected that the data would be retained, the court learned that it was not, the court gave an order for it to be retained. That is the seeming reason for the order.

Put another way: if the incident last year had not happened, the court would still have issued the order currently under discussion.