Here’s What Happened in the JGR vs. Chris Gabehart/Spire Lawsuit This Week (July 17-24)

Swipes, jabs, and even blows continue to be exchanged between Joe Gibbs Racing and its former competition director, Chris Gabehart, as well as Gabehart’s new employer, Spire Motorsports.

The lawsuit, which originated in February, stems from JGR’s allegations that Gabehart misappropriated confidential information and trade secrets after he departed the organization in November 2025, then shared the information with Spire. It also accused Gabehart of violating the non-compete provision of his separation agreement, which barred him from performing a role similar to his competition director position for another race team for 18 months. Gabehart countered by saying he properly invoked a term of the agreement by notifying JGR of inconsistencies with the job description, shortening the non-compete to one week.

JGR also included Spire in the litigation, alleging that Spire committed tortious interference by encouraging Gabehart to misappropriate and share its stolen data with the intent to harm JGR’s competitive standing.

In June, both Gabehart and Spire filed countersuits against JGR. Gabehart accused JGR of withholding compensation in the form of his salary and bonuses, failing to satisfy the terms of his separation agreement, and violating trespass laws by accessing his personal accounts after he left the team. Meanwhile, Spire’s counterclaims argue that JGR didn’t fulfill an agreement to either “trade” an employee or provide equivalent compensation in exchange for one of its car chiefs during the 2025 season.

Judge Susan C. Rodriguez, who is overseeing the case in the Western District of North Carolina, set the trial date for Feb. 1, 2027. It should be noted that the court found that Gabehart misappropriated JGR’s trade secrets.

This week’s issues centered on Gabehart’s countersuit and JGR’s response, as well as documentation from Spire that JGR is withholding critical documents from discovery.

The following is a continuation of last week’s update in which several documents were filed by all parties.

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

• Last week, Spire filed a brief in support of a motion to compel JGR to produce documents and information relevant to the case.

• Spire maintained that despite making consistent demands at an unnecessary pace regarding information discovery, JGR has been “dragging its feet” multiple times on producing key documents.

• With the discovery deadline approaching on Aug. 7, Spire accused JGR of withholding important documents relevant to the litigation. It also noted that JGR mandated a June 17 deadline for “substantial production of documents,” but, excluding a limited production, JGR didn’t produce documents until July 3, when it offered 85 documents.

• Among the documents in question, Spire said the most critical one contains the trade secrets that JGR claims were misappropriated, though it argued JGR has held that information since December 2025.

• “Despite delaying production of its own documents, JGR has engaged in aggressive discovery on all fronts. JGR has served over eighty third-party subpoenas, nineteen of which were served on Spire employees and independent contractors. And JGR has requested reaching, burdensome discovery into every corner of Spire’s business, including Spire’s highly proprietary information, that has little or no bearing on any parties’ claims or defenses,” Spire’s filing stated.

• Spire averred that it has produced nearly 600 documents containing over 1,600 pages since the discovery process began. It also noted that Gabehart has produced 800 documents totaling over 1,500 pages. Spire claimed JGR has filed roughly 800 documents, though it believes there should be more breadth to it considering JGR is the party that pursued litigation.

• According to the filing, Spire had multiple requests for interrogatories and document production rejected by JGR.

• One of the documents that Spire accused JGR of withholding relates to JGR’s policies regarding its “enforcement of non-competition or non-solicitation provisions against employees” who serve in a similar role to that of Gabehart’s.

• JGR responded by claiming that no one in a similar role to Gabehart, nor anyone who held seniority over him, has left the organization.

• JGR also refused to produce “any of its confidential information and trade secrets except for those that it contends were misappropriated by Defendants.”

• “For example, a large category of responsive documents are documents demonstrating the precise scope of Gabehart’s role at JGR. JGR’s categorical “confidential information and trade secrets” exclusion would allow it to withhold all of those documents that say a word about JGR’s “confidential information” (whatever that may mean to JGR),” Spire asserted.

• Other documents at the heart of the matter involve communications between Gabehart and JGR surrounding his employment agreement. Among the documents that Spire accused JGR of withholding are matters of negotiations, non-compete provisions, and a carve-out.

• Spire also accused JGR of withholding metadata related to the trade secrets JGR accused Gabehart of misappropriating. As a result, Spire argued it is unable to view who created the documents and when they were last accessed, as well as if they are actually trade secrets.

• Additionally, JGR has shared trade secrets with fellow Toyota organizations Legacy Motor Club, 23XI Racing and Toyota Racing Development. However, Spire contested that JGR has refused to produce documentation containing confidentiality agreements, which Spire argued is relevant to see if JGR has suffered any damages from misappropriation.

• In addition to these documents, Spire asserted that JGR has failed to produce documents that indicate evidence of economic harm as a result of the alleged misappropriation.

• Continuing its request for information regarding Gabehart, Spire argued that JGR has withheld documents relating to Gabehart’s services at JGR, though the organization produced a “laundry list” of his performed services. Spire contends that the presented documents don’t prove that Gabehart actually performed those services.

• Despite asking Spire to produce documents entailing its financial performance, JGR has allegedly refused to do so, a move in which Spire argued that JGR’s financial data “should be broader than Spire’s — after all, it is JGR who seeks recompense for damages it allegedly suffered,” the filing stated.

• Meanwhile, JGR made a filing last week opposing the counterclaims made by Gabehart.

• “Through his counterclaims … Gabehart now seeks to paint himself as the victim and to illogically claim that JGR is somehow liable for its discovery of his nefarious conduct. Gabehart’s own allegations defeat his supposed claims,” JGR opened the filing with.

• JGR stood on the notion that Gabehart departed the organization on Nov. 10, 2025, and that Gabehart has not shown evidence for receiving additional compensation beyond what he has received. Gabehart, to the contrary, argues that JGR terminated him in February and has not paid him full compensation.

• In response to Gabehart’s claims that JGR violated the Fraud and Abuse Act and North Carolina Trespass Act by accessing Gabehart’s devices after a forensic review, JGR argued that it owned the computer it accessed and was granted a court-ordered forensic review, which Gabehart agreed to.

• JGR stated that, contrary to Gabehart’s accusations, it was only entitled to pay him a base salary, and that Gabehart agreed to a separation on Nov. 10, 2025. It argued that the employment agreement did not stipulate a continued salary after his departure.

• Responding to Gabehart’s claims that his employment didn’t officially end until Feb. 9, JGR stated, “Gabehart contradicts this allegation elsewhere in his Counterclaims as he alleges that after returning his “JGR-issued devices on November 10, 2025,” “his employment had effectively ended.”

• JGR also maintained that even if Gabehart remained as an employee until Feb. 9, it was not contractually obligated to continue paying him a salary.

• Regarding Gabehart’s claims that JGR paid him his bonuses beyond the agreed timeframe, JGR said that Gabehart didn’t specify what the timeframe should have been, and that it did pay him bonus earnings on Jan. 20.

• Gabehart also contended that he should have been paid $100,000 for notifying JGR of inconsistencies with his job through a written notice. JGR opposed this by stating that Gabehart didn’t sign a mutual release from the team, which was a condition to earn the $100,000.

• JGR also refuted Gabehart’s claims that it didn’t complete the separation process in which he allegedly invoked his rights. “This claim fails because Gabehart’s allegations demonstrate that in fact he did not comply with multiple conditions required under Section 6 of his Employment Agreement. Id. at ¶ 16. Among other things, Gabehart does not allege that he provided JGR at least sixty days to resolve alleged inconsistencies about his job duties,” the filing stated.

• While Gabehart said that JGR manufactured a “for cause” termination of his employment, JGR said that Gabehart’s admittance to syncing his accounts with his JGR laptop, his possession of confidential information, and his agreement to remove JGR files from his accounts show that it terminated him for cause.

• In response to Gabehart’s claims that JGR violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and North Carolina Computer Trespass Act by accessing the computer after his departure, JGR argued that its access to a device it owns is not “without permission.” It also said that Gabehart’s argument that it accessed his personal accounts after his departure returns to the fact that he synced his personal accounts with the JGR laptop after he left.

• Regarding Gabehart’s accusations against JGR as a result of a forensic examiner sending communications to its counsel about the devices. JGR said that even Gabehart admits the forensic examiners “had the authority to make copies of the devices at issue.”

• Additionally, Gabehart’s claims accused the examiner of misusing his access to the devices and accounts, an issue that JGR argued is not covered by the CFAA.