## Facts

- Supermarket of Marlinton, Inc., a West Virginia grocery retailer, alleged several dairy suppliers conspired to fix wholesale milk prices sold to retail stores in parts of Virginia and West Virginia.
- The alleged conduct involved coordinated bidding, customer allocation, and maintenance of artificially high wholesale prices.
- The asserted conspiracy primarily occurred from the mid-1970s through the mid-1980s and ended more than four years before suit.
- Supermarket filed a treble-damages federal antitrust action in 1993.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by the four-year limitations period for private antitrust actions.
- Supermarket argued tolling based on fraudulent concealment, asserting the conspiracy was hidden and that defendants’ conduct prevented timely discovery.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding the action was untimely and that fraudulent concealment was not established as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence of fraudulent concealment to toll the four-year statute of limitations for federal antitrust claims under 15 U.S.C. § 15b.
2. Whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence to discover the alleged price-fixing within the limitations period.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
- The court held the antitrust claims were time-barred under 15 U.S.C. § 15b.
- The court held the plaintiff failed to carry its burden to show fraudulent concealment sufficient to toll the statute of limitations.
- The court concluded that observable market conditions were enough to place a reasonable retailer on inquiry notice, and the plaintiff did not show diligent investigation once on notice.

## Legal Principles

- Private federal antitrust actions are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. (15 U.S.C. § 15b)
- Fraudulent concealment tolls limitations only if the plaintiff proves: (1) concealment of the cause of action by the defendant (by affirmative acts or, in limited circumstances, a self-concealing wrong), (2) failure to discover the operative facts within the limitations period, and (3) failure to discover despite due diligence.
- Mere nondisclosure or secrecy inherent in an agreement is insufficient; the plaintiff must show conduct aimed at preventing discovery.
- When facts would prompt a reasonable person to investigate (inquiry notice), tolling is unavailable absent reasonable diligence.
- On summary judgment, a plaintiff relying on fraudulent concealment must present evidence supporting each tolling element; conclusory assertions do not suffice.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that Supermarket’s 1993 antitrust suit was untimely because it did not show defendants’ affirmative concealment or that it exercised due diligence to discover the alleged milk price-fixing when market signals should have triggered investigation, so the statute of limitations was not tolled and summary judgment was affirmed.


Supermarket of Marlinton, Inc. v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc., 71 F.3d 119 (4th Cir. 1995)