The defendant hospital moved for security for costs against two groups of plaintiffs who were seeking to reopen a trial judgment under Rule 59.06 based on alleged fresh evidence.
The plaintiffs had previously lost at trial and on appeal, with significant unpaid costs awards against them.
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish impecuniosity and that their Rule 59.06 motion did not have a good chance of success, as the alleged new evidence was either publicly available previously or irrelevant to the limitation period issue that defeated their claims.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $60,000 in security for costs.
