Uncle Nearest dispute to be public record

Judge denies emergency continuance sought by affiliated companies

10:22 a.m. Feb. 2, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

A federal judge has turned down an emergency request from several business entities linked to Uncle Nearest to postpone a key February hearing. This decision allows arguments to move forward about whether more companies should be included in a federal receivership related to the spirits brand.

In an order issued Friday, Jan. 30, U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. said the non-party entities did not prove that a delay was needed for due-process reasons. He found that the parties already have enough information to prepare their defenses before the Feb. 9 hearing in Knoxville.

• Status Report | Steger Order | Atchley Order

Court Rejects Claims of Insufficient Preparation Time

Several affiliated companies, including Shelbyville Barrel House BBQ, Humble Baron, Quill and Cask Owner, Nashwood, Shelbyville Grand, and 4 Front Street, filed the emergency motion. They argued they needed more time to respond to the receiver’s efforts to determine whether they should be included in the receiver's estate.

Judge Atchley disagreed, pointing out that the receiver has already had many discussions with the companies during document production. He also said the companies know their own financial relationships and records.

“The Court fails to see how this is the case,” Atchley wrote, stating that nothing in the record suggests the receiver’s evidence or arguments will come as a surprise.

The court also emphasized that motion hearings are not trials and that procedural tools – such as affidavits, stipulations, and supplemental briefing – can streamline the proceedings while preserving fairness.

“If the hearing leaves any lingering questions, the Court will order the appropriate parties to submit supplemental briefing,” Atchley wrote, adding that the Feb. 9 hearing is not necessarily the final opportunity to present evidence.

Parallel Ruling Keeps Filings Public

The denial of the delay comes soon after another important decision in the case. On Sunday, Feb. 1, U.S. Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger denied all pending requests to seal filings in the Uncle Nearest litigation.

In that order, the court rejected arguments from the receiver, Farm Credit Mid-America, and Uncle Nearest’s principals that sealing records was needed to protect business value or confidential information. Judge Steger, citing recent Sixth Circuit precedent, repeated that federal courts strongly favor public access.

“Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records,” Steger wrote, adding that generalized claims of competitive harm or reputational damage fall far short of the legal standard 122.

The court also criticized the parties for not explaining why whole documents should be sealed instead of just redacting specific parts. The court said these requests were too broad and not supported by law.

Scheduling Impasse Prompts Request for Court Intervention

Meanwhile, a separate status filing shows that the parties are having more procedural disagreements. On Jan. 30, the receiver, Farm Credit Mid-America, and Uncle Nearest’s principals told the court they could not agree on a joint litigation schedule after a required meeting.

Because of this, the parties formally asked the court to set a schedule to keep the case moving forward.

This disagreement highlights the importance of the upcoming Feb. 9 hearing. The hearing will cover the receiver’s motion for clarification, which could expand the receivership, and a motion to reconsider parts of the court’s earlier decisions.

What Comes Next

With the delay and sealing requests denied, the case now moves forward in two main ways:

• The Feb. 9 hearing will go ahead as planned, and the court expects the parties to be ready.

• Court filings will stay public, so financial records, arguments, and testimony that affect court decisions will be available to everyone.

Judge Atchley ended his order by assuring all parties that due process will be respected, but not postponed. “The Court assures the parties that they will receive due process as the Motion for Clarification is litigated,” he wrote.