JGR given court deadline to specify allegations of stolen trade secrets

Joe Gibbs Racing has been ordered to submit a final statement by the end of next week on the alleged trade secrets it says were misappropriated by its former competition director Chris Gabehart and/or his new employer, Spire Motorsports.

The ruling came Wednesday from U.S. Magistrate Judge David Keesler, who had heard arguments on five motions to compel discovery on Oct. 1. Spire Motorsports, Gabehart and JGR all filed motions. During that hearing, Spire Motorsports told the court that Gibbs keeps adding to the list of what it claims is a trade secret.

Keesler stated that Gibbs “should promptly and fully identify the trade secrets at issue in this litigation.” He did much the same during the hearing, noting that at this stage in litigation, the lawsuit should be clear. Joe Gibbs Racing filed its lawsuit against Gabehart and Spire Motorsports in February.

A host of documents have also been ordered for production.

Spire Motorsports was granted the request made for the full agreement Joe Gibbs Racing has with Toyota Racing Development. It must be provided on or before Oct. 13. Last week, Spire Motorsports argued that it needs to know what level of protection exists for the alleged trade secrets JGR claims were stolen.

The organization was also granted spreadsheets that are prepared by Joe Gibbs Racing’s CFO, Tim Carmichael, that begin in January 2025. Unless the two sides agree on a time frame. Spire Motorsports sought those to defend against the damages claim Joe Gibbs Racing has made.

Lastly, Spire Motorsports sought documents showing the services Gabehart performed at Joe Gibbs Racing. JGR has argued that Gabehart cannot work in the same role as he did at their organization.

As such, the court ruled that, “Defendant Spire’s suggestion of one (1) month of Gabehart’s emails while employed by JGR seems to be a reasonable request and proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiff JGR shall provide Spire with access to one (1) month of emails as crew chief, and one (1) month of emails as competition director, that would be representative of Gabehart’s employment and duties at JGR.”

On the issue of the clean room and its access, the parties were encouraged to work through their differences at this time.

RELATED: Spire, JGR continue trading accusations ahead of trial

Joe Gibbs Racing’s multiple motions sought technical documents from Spire Motorsports. In Keesler’s ruling, the court said both sides must turn over “their final, as-raced, race car setup sheets for the 2025 and 2026 NASCAR Cup Series” seasons. Those also have to be turned over on or before Oct. 13.

Gibbs also sought additional technical documents, such as competition meeting materials, and the court found that while the request is relevant, it is “somewhat burdensome.” Instead, Spire Motorsports and Gibbs have an agreement on certain categories to release, and the court will allow Spire to limit production to races that Gabehart attended.

However, the court denied 20 specific categories of additional documents that Gibbs wanted. Spire Motorsports told the court that the request was “incredibly overboard” and that it had already produced some of the requested information.

Gabehart, meanwhile, was granted the internal communications from TRD he sought. It is limited to texts and emails of Andy Graves, Jack Irving, Slugger Labbe and Tyler Gibbs, and specifically looks for communications about his departure from Gibbs, employment at Spire, and the lawsuit.

The court also granted Gabehart’s request for the technical agreements between TRD and Joe Gibbs Racing.

The court denied Gabehart two things: communications from TRD to third parties about him or Spire, and any other documents or communications about the lawsuit. The court found both “overly broad and burdensome.”

Keesler also wrote in his ruling, “Respectfully, the Court wishes the Parties could resolve more of these discovery disputes on their own without Court intervention. The Parties in this case litigate like they race – all out to win. That approach has certainly applied to discovery in this case, and while admirable to an extent, has likely contributed to delays and additional expense. That said, the Court does appreciate the efforts of counsel in advocating for their clients, and occasionally, resolving an issue by compromise.”