Data dog. U can't just throw that number of 4000 a day number without understanding the facts behind the number. The court of appeals in the Lopez case rules that Watchtower had to present those records but can redact the personal information of third party individuals. Both parties agreed that the victims information should be redacted and even zalkin agreed that the accused should be redacted, at least at one point. The debate is what did the court of appeals mean when they wrote third party, does that include witnesses, congregation and elders have a right to privacy. Even zalkin admits both in court document and to bundy he received documents, though he says they were too heavily redacted. Even though he says he just want to use the information for statistical data, but would not accept a numbering a pseudonym system.
The court of appeals accepted the appeal on 8/26 so they put a stay on the sactions till a ruling is made. So no watchtower does not owe what some people say they do. The sanctions would go up to that point and if the appeals court agrees with the plaintiff in the pardon case.