Yeah; I haven't read TFA but IMO especially if Iron Mountain is aiding the procurement of said court order through giving some (potentially redacted as required

Yeah; I haven't read TFA but IMO especially if Iron Mountain is aiding the procurement of said court order through giving some (potentially redacted as required for privacy purposes) "sample" court documents that could be readily used as reference so the lawyer on the Nine PBS side (filing with the court to get a judge to order Iron Mountain to release that data to Nine PBS) doesn't need to waste their time repeating all the drafting from scratch for what I'm assuming would be a (from the legal perspective) straight-forward request (that nonetheless has to specifically account for the particular legal data possession/ownership/access-rights situation under which the data in question is stored at Iron Mountain), especially as relevant for the situation at hand allowing Nine PBS to put a temporary data retention legal hold on these 50TB giving them a fair deadline (not merely "legally 'reasonable'") either on charity (understanding the gravity of the "this Nine PBS data is a public good (at a cursory glance)"/"information wants to be free") or offering general reasonable list price of what they bill for retaining 50TB stored under the storage model at play for "just one more month" (or whatever fair deadline) paid by Nine PBS.