Not quite. The demand from McDonalds was that the tapes only be used for the purpose of the criminal proceedings against that particular suspect. They may have been worried about the media but equally they may have been worried about something else in the videos which might cause other problems for them.
I’d say point 4 is the most likely followed by a variation of point 2 - arrogant and pigheaded counsel who insists that things have to be done their way and since they got the state to agree to the terms previously, the state has to agree this time…
I’m not the legal department; but I can vividly imagine the legal department reacting to my failure to keep relevant evidence pertaining to a legally salient incident from being caught up by routine time-based retention policies after being notified that it was relevant and legally salient.
It is my, admittedly layman’s, understanding that routine purging of data according to a chronological policy is totally legitimate(excepting specific flavors of data whose retention is specifically mandated); but that pretty much the moment it comes up as potential evidence you are in spoilation city if you knowingly let it fall into the policy grinder.
