and Likely Duration of the Litigation The first Girsh factor, which evaluates the complexity, expenses and likely duration of the litigation, “captures the probable costs, in both time and money, of continued litigation.” Warfarin, 391 F.3d at 535-36 (citation omitted). At the outset, the Court appreciates that antitrust suits, like this one, are often complex actions to prosecute. See In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 292 F.Supp.2d 631, 639 (E.D.Pa.2003). Furthermore, given that the settlement agreement occurred at an early stage of this litigation, prior to the active commencement of discovery, Plaintiffs have avoided such expense and delay as may have attached to these settling Defendants. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558-59, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Discovery in this case against Sparboe would
recognizing that antitrust discovery can be expensive recognizing trial courts decision on discovery issues implies a finding that requested discovery was not reasonably available recognizing applicability of discovery rule holding that while as a general matter discovery should be freely permitted  j jurisdictional discovery is justified only if the plaintiff reasonably demonstrates that it can supplement its jurisdictional allegations through discovery holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law