of discovery, an appellate court must employ a “concededly rigorous standard” of scrutiny. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 746, 96 S.Ct. 1848, 1853, 48 L.Ed.2d 338 (1976). Initially, we note the existence of a policy disfavoring the dismissal of antitrust actions before discovery begins because the proof of illegal conduct lies largely in the hands of the alleged conspirators. Id.; Quality Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 542 F.2d 466, 472 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2986, 53 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1977); see also Tarleton v. Meharry Medical College, 717 F.2d 1523, 1529 (6th Cir.1983) (dismissals of antitrust claims prior to discovery should be granted very sparingly); Chapiewsky v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 297 F.Supp. 33, 38 (W.D.Wis.1968) (<HOLDING>). The record does not clearly indicate whether
recognizing the difficulty of precisely pleading the effects on interstate commerce before completion of discovery holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce holding that commerce clause authorizes congress to punish any particular criminal action even without proof of a relation to interstate commerce when the activity is part of a class of activities determined by congress to affect interstate commerce recognizing that  the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce recognizing power of states to engage in some regulation of interstate commerce