Carey v. Grigsby

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
__________________________________________________________________________
BENJAMIN R. CAREY,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v. 	Case No. 2:25-cv-02349-MSN-atc
JURY DEMAND
AARON J. GRIGSBY.
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines (ECF No. 52, “Motion”),
filed February 4, 2026. 	The Parties represent therein that there is good cause to suspend all
remaining case deadlines because “[d]iscovery in this case has been stayed” and the “duration of
the stay is currently unknown.” (Id. at PageID 184.)
In short, the Court is somewhat bewildered by the Parties’ Motion. This case is already
stayed in its entirety, with an exception for agreed discovery—there are no deadlines to extend.
(See ECF No. 36 at PageID 99 (asking that the “Court grant [the] motion and stay these
proceedings”); ECF No. 43 at PageID 151 (indicating that “this case is hereby stayed”).) 	The
Court even told the Parties verbally during the status conference on January 20, 2026: “For the
record, my order of December 2nd granted the defendant's motion for stay until this status
conference could be conducted. I'm going to extend it . . . .” (ECF No. 51 (transcript on file with
the Court).)
Case 2:25-cv-02349-MSN-atc Document 53 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID
<pageID>

2
Even more confusing is the Parties’ suggestion that the Court needs to do something before
this case can proceed. At the hearing on January 20, the Court made it abundantly clear that, given
the Parties lack of agreement on the scope of discovery that would be allowable, see ECF No. 48
at PageID 159 (“The Parties disagree on whether Carey should be allowed to conduct discovery
directed toward Grigsby on matters unrelated to his conduct before, during, and after the
collision.”), the stay would remain in place until one or both of the Parties submitted discovery
motions or an agreement was reached. (ECF No. 51 (transcript on file with the Court) (“I’ll extend
that stay until you all come back with the appropriate pleadings.”); id. (“I’m going to extend it
until we receive an appropriate . . . motion to compel.”)). But the stay always had a carveout for
“agreed, limited discovery.” 	(ECF No. 43 at PageID 151.) 	And the Parties conveyed an
understanding of such during the January 20 hearing. Mr. Funderburke inquired if there was now
a “blanket stay” or if Plaintiff “c[ould] proceed with responding,” and the Court said, “that’s fine.”
(ECF No. 51 (transcript on file with the Court).)
To summarize, the Court is expecting the Parties to either: (1) notify the Court that they
have reached an agreement regarding the scope of discovery, or (2) file appropriate motions so
that the Court can properly adjudicate the scope of discovery. 	Agreed discovery remains, as
before, acceptable and permitted. 	Deadlines remain, as before, suspended. 	The Motion is
DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 6th day of February, 2026.
s/ Mark S. Norris
MARK S. NORRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02349-MSN-atc Document 53 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID
<pageID>