This. I never understood why everyone thought the disclosure was for the 115 case, or why it had just happened. It has no relevance, as far as I can see, to the 115 case. And the APT leak came four months after the claim, after all. It probably came from the directions hearing for the tribunal which should have been held shortly after the arbitrators had been appointed (X.18.3):
View attachment 122649
In any case, if the arbitrators felt the need to order that discovery, the club presumably persuaded them there was a need for it. Which, I suppose, is encouraging.