Sports
Chris Gabehart, Spire want reciprical expedited discovery against Gibbs
In a late Wednesday night series of court filings, Chris Gabehart and his retained attorneys responded to or otherwise addressed the continued legal claims made against him and Spire Motorsports by Joe Gibbs Racing.
The first document filed to the docket was a second first-person declaration in which the former engineer, crew chief and competition director made the case that his role as Chief Motorsports Officer has no overlap with his previous position at JGR.
Advertisement
In this letter, Gabehart detailed in line-item fashion all the things he did last year as Joe Gibbs Racing competition director and his nine-race stint as crew chief for Ty Gibbs and the No. 54 team, which was one of reasons he became dissatisfied with his employment.
Gabehart said Spire already has three crew chiefs and a competition director in Matt McCall. He wrote that Spire has a technical director and head of vehicle optimization and also does not serve in those capacities either.
Instead, the 44-year-old cited how much more expansive the Spire Motorsports umbrella is compared to Joe Gibbs Racing with teams that compete in Cup, Dirt Sprint Car, Dirt Late Models and Pavement Late Models. This is in addition to parent company TWG Motorsports owning Andretti Global and the General Motors Formula 1 team.
Advertisement
His words are italicized below:
“The breadth of Spire’s racing program is central to my role as Spire’s Chief Motorsports Officer. Whereas my position at JGR was confined to NASCAR Cup Series competition, my responsibilities at Spire focus on strategic initiatives and operational oversight across Spire’s entire multi-series motorsports enterprise. My job also involves interfacing regularly with TWG Motorsports teams to discuss and develop common best practices amongst the teams. This is currently done through periodic meetings and event visitation by team principals from each discipline that encourage communication and observation of all of the forms of racing in the TWG Motorsports platform.
“My current role at Spire sits at the executive level and encompasses strategic oversight across all of Spire’s racing programs, not just the NASCAR Cup Series. This structural difference is significant. At JGR, I reported within the NASCAR Cup Series hierarchy. At Spire, I operate at the executive leadership level with responsibility spanning multiple racing series and organizational functions. The scope and seniority of my position at Spire involves duties of an entirely different character than those I performed at JGR.”
Advertisement
To wit, Gabehart says the role of ‘competition director’ was ‘organizationally parallel’ to positions like Production Director, Aero Director and Technical Director.
At Spire, Gabehart says he is working towards big picture initiatives that go beyond NASCAR like targeting disciplines to expand into, maintaining Spire branding and competition standards across all the various teams under the corporate umbrella, working with Chevrolet and Hendrick Motorsports to acquire resources and become an asset with both.
His salary has been redacted as part of the public facing version of the declaration.
Advertisement
Gabehart also continued to assert that he made clear in writing the reasons he was leaving Joe Gibbs Racing, something JGR said was not made clear enough or in its own individual memo to senior leadership. He maintains the fact that Joe Gibbs Racing even briefly began to work out the details with him on a separation agreement is proof of that understanding.
In other words, Gabehart asserts that JGR was in violation of its contract with him rather than the other way around as they stopped paying him. Gabehart was a free agent as far as he was concerned, legally.
“Mr. Carmichael (Tim, JGR Chief Financial Officer) notes that I have not signed a complete mutual release agreement with JGR. That is accurate only in the limited sense that the parties did not ultimately finalize a separation agreement. After November 10, 2025, I remained engaged in good-faith discussions and then, in December, responded to JGR’s demand letter by agreeing to a comprehensive forensic review designed and directed by JGR. The parties’ failure to finalize a release was the result of JGR’s unilateral decision to change course, not because I failed to proceed under the Section 6, Paragraph 2 pathway we had been following in November.”
Advertisement
That forensic analysis did not show any evidence that Gabehart shared any proprietary trade information with Spire Motorsports but the suspicion that he may have is what prompted this legal action. For their part, the Gabehart and Spire camps maintain this is punitive action ‘for daring to leave.’
Read Also:
Gibbs seeks proof that Spire, Chris Gabehart conspired to steal trade secrets
In fact, Joe Gibbs Racing has also motioned the court to allow for expedited discovery, a more immediate version of the process that allows both parties of a lawsuit to obtain private documents and communications pertinent to the legal complaint.
Advertisement
More on that below.
Gabehart also refuted the declaration from longtime Joe Gibbs Racing competition employee Todd Berrier stating a conversation between them indicating that Gabehart had first met Spire co-owner Dan Towriss about a job last October.
“It asserts that on or about October 21, 2025, I told him that I had a meeting with Spire co-owner Dan Towriss about a potential job and that I later texted him confirming that I had that meeting. Mr. Berrier is mistaken. The first time I met Mr. Towriss was on February 28, 2026, at an IndyCar race in St. Petersburg, Florida. Any contrary statement is incorrect.”
Advertisement
Towriss also submitted a declaration in support of that statement on Wednesday night.
“To the best of my recollection, I did not meet with Mr. Gabehart, either in person or virtually, at any point in time in 2025. And, specifically, I did not meet with Mr. Gabehart in person or virtually on or around October 21, 2025. The first time I ever met Mr. Gabehart in person was on February 28, 2026 at the IndyCar race in St. Petersburg, Florida. The first time I ever spoke with Mr. Gabehart was during a brief phone call on January 9, 2026. During that call, Jeff Dickerson briefly introduced me to Mr. Gabehart.We did not discuss Mr. Gabehart’s employment with Spire during that Call.”
Gabehart also addressed the declarations by two Joe Gibbs Racing sponsors that Spire had reached out to essentially poach them. Gabehart says he has never met those two sponsor representatives nor shared information about their JGR partnerships with Spire.
Advertisement
As for the revelation that Joe Gibbs Racing had spied on him as he met with Spire co-owner Jeff Dickerson over the winter …
“I have also reviewed the declaration submitted by Ryan Simpson. Mr. Simpson is apparently a private investigator who was retained by JGR to conduct surveillance on me. I was unaware that JGR was spying on me. I do not know why JGR was spying on me or for how long. The meeting with Jeff Dickerson referenced in Mr. Simpson’s declaration was held in public at a restaurant in Mooresville, North Carolina. I was not trying to conceal that meeting.”
Dickerson also addressed that revelation in his own declaration on Wednesday night. He said that he and Gabehart have been friends for nearly two decades and have met for dinner regularly over that period. He says he brokered Gabehart’s first NASCAR job while launching Kyle Busch Motorsports. At the time, Dickerson was an agent and spotter for Busch.
Advertisement
“On December 2, 2025, Mr. Gabehart and I met again, this time for lunch at Barcelona Burger and Beer Garden in Mooresville, North Carolina, which is adjacent to the Toyota Gazoo Racing Garage. We sat down at the table I am known to sit at, at a restaurant that I frequent.
“The Toyota GR Garage is a high performance motorsports testing garage used by Toyota, which is in a technical alliance with JGR. Workers from the Toyota GR Garage routinely eat lunch at Barcelona Burger and Beer Garden. I had absolutely no concerns about any of those workers seeing me eating lunch with Mr. Gabehart because I understood that there was no applicable non-compete in place at the time I met with Mr. Gabehart. And, even if a non-compete had been in place, there is nothing that prevents me from eating lunch with a friend.
Unbeknownst to me, JGR had hired a private investigator to follow Mr. Gabehart around. The private investigator apparently took photographs of me eating lunch with Mr. Gabehart. I was surprised and, quite frankly, disturbed to learn that a competitor in our industry had hired someone to follow its former employee around. I cannot stress this enough: It is extraordinary for an organization in our business to hire a private investigator to follow around any employee, let alone a former employee. In my twenty-five years of experience in this industry, I have never once heard of a team doing so.
Advertisement
“Despite JGR being well aware that Spire was recruiting Mr. Gabehart as early as December 2, 2025, no one at JGR ever contacted me to claim that Mr. Gabehart was subject to an applicable non-compete (until JGR filed this lawsuit). Even during the forensic examination process described below, no one at JGR ever contacted me to claim that Mr. Gabehart was subject to an applicable non-compete.”
Gabehart’s full declaration letter can be read below.
Chris Gaebhart second declaration by mattweavermedia
Advertisement
Read Also:
Joe Gibbs Racing had Chris Gabehart followed by a private investigator before lawsuit
Expedited discovery responses
Typically, the discovery process begins after both parties participate in a Rule 26(f) conference, where all parties involved in litigation meet to discuss settlement options and negotiate the terms of which documents and communications are subject to the process.
To be granted expedited discovery, a party must show ‘good cause’ or ‘reasonableness’ in the interest of justice and the potential for immediate harm in the absence of the process taking place.
Advertisement
Effectively, Joe Gibbs Racing says it has reasons to believe Gabehart may have shared the competitive proprietary information he stored on his devices to Spire Motorsports as part of the change of employment.
The legal team representing Gabehart disagreed with that conclusion in a Wednesday night filing. The separate legal team representing Spire also disagreed. Their reasons were practically the same.
From the Gabehart legal team’s filing:
“The Motion is unnecessary, premature, and seeks to circumvent the orderly discovery process that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to ensure. JGR has already received the very information it claims to need: a comprehensive forensic examination of Mr. Gabehart’s personal devices, conducted by JGR’s own chosen forensic examiner, pursuant to a protocol drafted by JGR’s own counsel. That examination established that Mr. Gabehart did not transmit, distribute, or share any JGR Confidential Information (as defined in the Employment Agreement, ECF 8-2). At this time, there is no justification for departing from the traditional discovery timeline.”
Advertisement
From the Spire legal team’s filing:
“JGR misunderstands the legal standard applicable to expedited discovery requests and wholly fails to demonstrate ‘good cause’ or the broad, expedited discovery it seeks in this case. Indeed, although expedited discovery is only appropriate when a movant would be irreparably harmed by abiding by Rule 26’s typical discovery schedule, JGR has utterly failed to articulate how it would be irreparably harmed in the absence of expedited discovery, as required. In fact, JGR affirmatively represents that expedited discovery is not necessary here because its pending Motion for a Preliminary Injunction provides sufficient evidence for this Court to conclude that JGR is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims, even without ‘having any access to expedited discovery.’ Dkt. That concession alone is a sufficient reason to deny JGR’s motion.”
Furthermore, both defendants have asked Judge Susan D Rodriguez, that if she does decide to grant JGR expedited discovery, that they both be eligible for the same on Joe Gibbs Racing over when it understood its agreement with Gabehart to have concluded.
Advertisement
Because, again, both Spire and Gabehart say they acted under the conviction that there was no applicable non-compete clause.
The Gabehart response lists three reasons for reciprocal discovery:
“First, Defendants are entitled to discovery concerning Mr. Gabehart’s compliance with Section 6, Paragraph 2 of the Employment Agreement. JGR has taken the position that Mr. Gabehart did not validly exercise his rights under Section 6, and that his termination was ‘for cause.’ Defendants are entitled to explore JGR’s communications and documents relating to Mr. Gabehart’s written notice under Section 6, JGR’s evaluation of that notice, negotiation of a separation agreement with Mr. Gabehart, JGR’s decision to place Mr. Gabehart on ‘garden leave,’ JGR’s withholding of wages, and records concerning Mr. Gabehart’s employment status. These documents are exclusively in JGR’s possession and are directly relevant to whether any noncompete obligation applies.
Advertisement
“Second, Defendants are entitled to discovery concerning JGR’s internal communications about Mr. Gabehart’s exercise of his contractual rights. The text messages between Mr. Gabehart and Tim Carmichael demonstrate that JGR leadership understood Mr. Gabehart was exercising his rights under Section 6 and did not blame him for doing so. Defendants are entitled to discover what other JGR personnel communicated about this subject, and whether JGR’s after-the-fact ‘termination for cause’ was a pretext designed to avoid the consequences of Section 6.
Third, Defendants are entitled to discovery concerning JGR’s decision to terminate Mr. Gabehart for cause after the forensic examination confirmed no misappropriation occurred. The alleged termination notice was not issued until February 9, 2026—three months after Mr. Gabehart exercised his rights under Section 6, nearly three months after JGR began withholding his wages, and after the forensic examination confirmed no misappropriation. Defendants are entitled to explore the circumstances of this belated termination decision, including what JGR knew and when.”
Gabehart’s legal team writes that if JGR is entitled to expedited discovery from Gabehart, than the inverse is also true.
Advertisement
Spire’s legal team made a similar argument in their own filing:
“If, however, this Court concludes that ‘good cause’ exists to warrant expedited discovery in this case, Defendant respectfully requests discovery be reciprocal in nature and limited to non-privileged documents that bear on the narrow, central issue related to JGR’s pending preliminary injunction motion: whether the 18-Month Non-Compete Provision in Gabehart’s employment contract was applicable at the time Spire hired Gabehart. Instead of the broad discovery JGR seeks, the Court should order limited, targeted discovery concerning the circumstances under which Mr. Gabehart’s employment with JGR ended in November 2025, including internal JGR communications reflecting how JGR interpreted and responded to the November 6 notice and how it decided to stop paying Mr. Gabehart.”
Chris Gabehart response to JGR motion for expedited discovery by mattweavermedia
Advertisement
3 11 Spire Response to JGR Expedited Discovery motion by mattweavermedia
What next?
The two sides will once again meet in court, before Judge Rodriguez, in Charlotte, North Carolina on Monday morning to expound on the arguments made in their legal filings over the past week.
To read more Motorsport.com articles visit our website.