context: Sanctions are not appropriate when the plaintiffs' pretrial inquiries into the factual and legal bases of the complaint are sufficient. The district court, recognizing the difficulty in proving conspiratorial agreement, did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiffs' claims were reasonable at that time and under those circumstances.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 960 F.2d 439, 446
citation_a.parenthetical: discussing difficulty in direct proof of conspiracy and suggesting courthouse door not be barred for those needing discovery for proof of allegations
citation_a.sentence: See id. (recognizing difficulty in proving conspiracy); see also Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 960 F.2d 439, 446 (5th Cir.1992) (discussing difficulty in direct proof of conspiracy and suggesting courthouse door not be barred for those needing discovery for proof of allegations); McGuire Oil Co. v. Mapco, Inc., 958 F.2d 1552, 1563 (11th Cir.1992) (finding claims may be meritless but not frivolous, given complexity of facts and legal issues involved).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1834
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that "a finding of a failure to state a claim does not invariably mean that the claim is without arguable merit"
citation_b.sentence: Cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 329, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1834, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (stating that “a finding of a failure to state a claim does not invariably mean that the claim is without arguable merit”).