no matter how meritorious one’s claim may appear at the outset, the course of litigation is rarely predictable. Decisive facts may not emerge until discovery or trial. The law may change or clarify in the midst of litigation. Even when the law or the facts appear questionable or unfavorable at the outset a party may have an entirely reasonable- ground for bringing suit. Chnstiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 694, 70 te “does not purport to confer immunity for actions unrelated to review process”). Also, because we cannot conclude the plaintiffs knew the defendants were immune at the outset of the litigation; we cannot say their challenge to the defendants’ immunity was not legitimate. See Meyers v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 341 F.3d 461, 473 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Leak v. Grant Med. Ctr., 893 F.Supp. 757, 763
holding where the plaintiff presented evidence which demonstrates that the terms alleged by the defendants to be indefinite were in fact sufficiently well delineated to all parties the entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendants was inappropriate despite the fact that the defendants contested the plaintiffs evidence concerning the manner in which the relevant contractual language should be construed holding a district court may in its discretion award attorneys fees upon a finding that plaintiffs action was frivolous unreasonable or without foundation even though not brought in subjective bad faith holding that courts may award prevailing title vii defendant attorney fees upon a finding that the plaintiffs action was frivolous unreasonable or without foundation even though not brought in subjective bad faith and fees also may be awarded if plaintiff continued to litigate after its action clearly became frivolous unreasonable or without foundation holding the bad faith rationale inapplicable given that the defendants acted in good faith in appealing the case and in raising defenses to the plaintiffs claims holding it was not unreasonable frivolous without foundation or in bad faith for plaintiffs to oppose the lmh defendants position on hcqia immunity because plaintiffs had valid questions concerning the manner in which the lmh defendants conducted the professional review of dr robert meyers and chose to resolve those issues in this court