Here’s What Happened in the JGR vs Chris Gabehart/Spire Lawsuit This Week (June 6-12)

After a couple of quiet weeks on the public front, new documents emerged in the case involving Joe Gibbs Racing versus its ex-competition director Chris Gabehart as well as his current employer, Spire Motorsports.

JGR initially filed the suit against Gabehart in February after alleging that he misappropriated its confidential information and trade secrets as well as violating his employee and separation agreements. JGR later included Spire in its complaint, accusing Spire of tortious interference with Gabehart by encouraging him to share JGR’s trade secrets and violate his agreements.

The case is being heard by Judge Susan C. Rodriguez of the Western District of North Carolina.

Both documents this week were drastically smaller than most filings up to this point, but carried significant impacts as the case continues to unravel.

Continue reading below to see what you need to know in this week’s update.

Read all of Frontstretch’s content covering the JGR vs. Gabehart lawsuit here

• On June 6, the parties agreed to terms and rules pertaining to the on-going pursuit of deleted texts between Gabehart and Spire’s co-owner Jeff Dickerson.

• JGR previously requested a subpoena, which both Gabehart and Spire agreed to, on the cellular providers for Dickerson and Gabehart to see if they could recover any deleted texts that discussed Gabehart’s misappropriation of JGR’s trade secrets or if Spire was aware of his employee and separation agreement. It also is seeking to discover when Dickerson enabled an auto-delete feature on his devices.

• The first term of the joint stipulation stated “If a wireless carrier produces text message content responsive to any subpoena served in this litigation, the receiving party will refrain from reviewing the content of the text message content until the opposing party’s counsel has been provided a one business-day opportunity to conduct a privilege review and identify any privileged communications in the text message content.”

• Secondly, the stipulation stated “If, during review of non-privileged text message content produced by wireless carries in response to subpoenas served int his litigation, a party believes it has encountered a communication that may be subject to the opposing party’s attorney-client privilege, that party will immediately cease review of the communication, flag it for the opposing party’s counsel, and refrain from further review or dissemination of the flagged communication until the privilege issue has been resolved.”

• Lastly, the agreement noted that nothing limits any of the parties from reviewing and presenting non-text message content from the carriers to all parties as a response to the subpoenas.

• On Thursday (Jun 11), Judge Rodriguez granted JGR its request for a second amended complaint that included additional allegations against Spire, as well as being allowed to change the corporate name of Spire in the case. Spire agreed to having its name changed but opposed JGR’s newest accusations.

• In early May, JGR presented its request to amend its complaint that accused Spire of tortious interference by hiring Gabehart while aware of his non-compete terms from JGR’s separation agreement. JGR also alleged that Spire created a “bespoke” role to cover up similar duties to his former role as competition director at JGR. Additionally, it contended that Spire’s boost in performance during the 2026 NASCAR Cup Series season is a direct result of Gabehart’s misappropriation.

• Spire responded to JGR’s motion on May 15, denouncing JGR’s claims and labeling them as “futile.” Spire argued that JGR presented no new evidence and that its case rests on speculation rather than concrete facts.

• In Judge Rodriguez’s order, the court stated, “the Court does not find the proposed amendments to be futile […] While this litigation has already generated numerous pleadings, briefs, and interactions with the Court, Defendants have not yet filed responsive pleadings to the First Amended Complaint, and the litigation is at an early stage.”

• Timing was a key factor in Judge Rodriguez’s decision, but she also noted that the permitted amendment does not prohibit Spire from presenting its case of the sufficiency of JGR’s claims during another phase of the lawsuit.

• JGR must file its second amended complaint by Monday, June 15. A response by Spire is due within 14 days of the order.

• A trial date is set for January 2027, and the parties are currently conducting fact discovery.