As part of the ongoing Joe Gibbs Racing v Chris Gabehart and Spire Motorsports lawsuit and countersuit, JGR is asking the court to force the defendants to produce certain technical documents.
Read Also:
Spire technical director Dax Gerringer was subject to deposition on August 20. Crew chief Travis Peterson was subject to deposition on August 25. The complete depositions are currently filed under seal and even the excerpts are redacted but JGR is using them to indicate that Gabehart is using proprietary information at Spire.
As a result, Joe Gibbs Racing wants Spire to produce to the court its final 2025 and 2026 set-up decisions made at each race. The defendants have objected with an argument that plaintiffs have not offered ‘at least a scintilla of evidence that an identified JGR trade secret reached Spire in some capacity.’
JGR believes Gerringer and Peterson have given them the scintilla of evidence. Peterson said Gabehart provided him tire pressure and spring settings previously used at JGR. The below in italics are taken directly from the Gibbs filing:
“Tire Pressure: Peterson testified that a Cup Series race early in the 2026 season, he asked Gabehart how Spire’s tire pressure compared to JGR’s for qualifying sessions because Peterson was ‘wondering if we need to be higher,’ and that Gabehart told him that JGR’s tire pressure ”
“Spring Settings: Peterson testified that at the same Cup Series Race, Gabheart informed him that JGR used a and provided Peterson with a specific numerical range used by JGR.”
In deposition, Spire competition director Matt McCall testified that ‘there is nothing (Gabehart) has been doing for the competition side’ but JGR says that Derringer said in his deposition that Gabehart ‘attended and actively participated in comp meetings after Kansas, both Atlanta races, and the All-Star Race at Dover.
The below in italics are taken directly from the Gibbs filing:
“Kansas Post-Race Meeting: Gerringer testified that Gabehart attended a Cup Series competition team post-race debrief meeting on April 20, 2026, and provided input regarding potential improvements Spire could make, . Both issues correspond with JGR trade secrets, and Gabehart’s November 2025 ‘Focus Plan,’ which JGR contends was Gabehart’s roadmap for implementing JGR information at Spire, lists “” under the heading of “.”
“Two Atlanta Post-Race Meetings: Gerringer testified that Gabehart attended two Cup Series competition post-race meetings on February 23, 2026, the day after the Cup Series Race in Atlanta, and provided input regarding and commented on .
“Dover All-Star Post-Race Meeting: Gerringer testified that Gabehart attended a Cup Series competition team post-race meeting on May 18, 2026, the day after the Cup Series race at Dover, and asked questions about Spire’s use of .”
Courts typically do not want to get involved in the discovery process but there are instances, potentially like this, where Judge Susan C. Rodriguez will have to issue a ruling where the two parties cannot agree on what should be produced.
Read Also:
Gabehart subpoenas TRD
As part of his defense and countersuit, Chris Gabehart wants Toyota to produce documents concerning communications the manufacturer had with Joe Gibbs Racing on the termination of the team’s longtime competition employee.
The basis in which Gabehart is asking for third-party subpoenas against Toyota senior executives is because Andy Graves issued a declaration in support of the lawsuit on the basis that Gabehart had access to the teams’ most secret competition information.
Or as Gabehart’s lawyers put it:
“Andy Graves submitted a sworn declaration—prepared by JGR’s own counsel—in support of JGR’s motion for injunctive relief. That is not a hunch. It is evidence of coordination between JGR and TRD in asserting claims against Mr. Gabehart.”
However, Toyota is not a party to this lawsuit, and they are under no obligation to go out of their way to produce these documents unless the court compels it to do so.
As Toyota lawyer Nate Pencook put it in a subpoena request response to Gabehart’s lawyers:
“We’ve considered your request, but we still do not see the relevance of the information you’re seeking to the underlying case nor the basis for placing this burden on a non-party, so we will not produce anything other than what we’ve already produced absent a court order. Our concerns are even greater after reviewing Mr. Gabehart’s and Spire’s respective Answers and Counterclaims. None of the defenses raised or counterclaims asserted involve TRD. Instead, Mr. Gabehart appears to be fishing for gossip and harassing JGR’s sponsor. We will address all of these issues with the Court if Mr. Gabehart chooses to file a motion to compel.”
Gabehart has issued such a motion to compel and Toyota is objecting based on how much time and money it would require to produce all the communications and documents being sought.
“The Motion asks this Court to override TRD’s timely objections and compel a non-party to conduct an enterprise-wide search and produce competitively-sensitive documents with no bearing on any claim or defense in this case. This would impose an enormous, disproportionate time and cost burden on TRD, requiring review of millions of documents—while threatening to expose TRD’s trade secrets and cause irreparable competitive harm, without any legitimate discovery need that party discovery could not satisfy. Worse, Gabehart’s generalized Motion fails to explain why each individual request is relevant and proportional, despite Judge Keesler’s instruction to do exactly that. The Motion should be denied.”
The full response can be read below.
We want your opinion!
What would you like to see on Motorsport.com?
– The Motorsport.com Team