That is not something that has existed up until now. Do you understand that? Got it. Okay. So I'm trying to understand why you think that's in the best interests. Well, understanding represented Ohio courts. Judges were waiving this. Our understanding is this would prevent enforcement of a contempt order if security was not provided. If the security was not provided in accordance with the Federal rules of civil procedure. 6s. That's what we put in. In the legislation. Yeah. This provision. So you're saying that essentially the way that you read this language is that it's not compelling the federal court to require security of a plaintiff. (06:22–06:34)
CLAIM
Asserts that judges were waiving security requirements and the provision would prevent enforcement of contempt orders if security was not provided.
This is an excerpt from a raw transcript. The assertions have not been audited or verified. Tap the video to view the source footage and understand the context.
