Here’s What Happened in the JGR vs. Chris Gabehart/Spire Lawsuit This Week (Aug. 29-Sept. 4)

The NASCAR Cup Series may be gearing up for the return of The Chase, but that still isn’t slowing down legal matters off the track.

Joe Gibbs Racing’s lawsuit against its ex-competition director Chris Gabehart and Spire Motorsports is nearing the seven-month mark as both sides seek to gain an advantage in the litigation.

After Judge Susan C. Rodriguez allowed several counterclaims made by Spire and Gabehart to continue last week (though she did dismiss a couple from Gabehart), the discovery period closed on Monday (Aug. 31).

The discovery process has been the site of much of the combat as all parties have reviewed key documents regarding the accusations at hand.

JGR continues to accuse Gabehart of misappropriating its confidential information and trade secrets after his departure in Nov. 2025, then transmitting that information to Spire, where he has served as the chief operating officer since February. JGR also accused Gabehart of breaching a restrictive covenant that prohibited him from performing similar services for another Cup team for 18 months. However, Gabehart maintains that his non-compete period was reduced to one week in the manner in which he informed JGR of his departure.

This week, both sides took further aim at each other by seeking the production of several key documents they believe are critical to the case.

A trial date is set for Feb. 1, 2027 in the Western District of North Carolina.

Looking to learn more about what has transpired this week? Continue below to catch up on the notes from the case.

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

• On Monday (Aug. 31), JGR filed a motion to compel the production of documents from both Spire and Gabehart. JGR’s intent for the document discovery is to determine Gabehart’s involvement in Spire’s Cup Series operations, as well as the misappropriation by the defending parties of JGR’s trade secrets.

• First, JGR accused Spire of withholding documents containing technical information about competition meetings. JGR is seeking to discover Gabehart’s involvement in these meetings and Spire’s race strategy. The requested documents include information such as setup analysis, race reports, pit crew operations, analytics, engineering, meeting notes, videos, presentations within those requests, and attendance records.

• JGR staked its importance of obtaining these documents by stating, “They show who attended, what Gabehart was permitted to see and hear, what he said, what information he received, and whether he provided or presented competition-related input. Further, any competition meeting materials after Gabehart’s arrival can potentially show Spire’s acquisition or use of JGR’s confidential information, even if Gabehart is not present.”

• Though Spire argues that the only competition meeting materials it is required to produce relate to documents that show Gabehart transmitted JGR’s confidential information or trade secrets, JGR contended that it ignores its claim that Gabehart violated his restrictive covenant by performing similar services at Spire to his JGR role.

• “Any record showing that Gabehart attended and participated in these meetings bears directly on JGR’s breach-of-contract claim, regardless of whether the record also reveals JGR information,” the filing stated.

• JGR pointed out that Spire co-owner Jeff Dickerson said that Gabehart has not attended any Cup competition meetings, but that he later contradicted this while Spire’s technical director Dax Gerringer said Gabehart has participated in meetings, including one at Kansas Speedway that was produced in competition notes.

• Much of the inquiry into Gabehat’s involvement revolves around his “Focus Plan,” a spreadsheet discovered at the beginning of the litigation that JGR believes he is using to streamline its confidential information to Spire.

• Spire also opposed the production of key documents because they were “new documents” that were outside the scope of discovery.

• “JGR rejects that position, but given the close of fact discovery today, JGR moves to compel all categories of the Additional Technical Documents because it cannot afford to play Spire’s guessing game as to the categories Spire will insist are not covered by a potential order granting the First Motion to Compel,” the filing read.

• Additionally, JGR requested that Gabehart be ordered to produce documents stemming from a forensic examiner’s review of his personal computer that contain JGR’s confidential information and trade secrets on a broader scope.

• The requested documents include communications relating to JGR’s trade secrets through possession, access, use, dissemination, disposition, deletion, or retrieval.

• JGR is also seeking Gabehart’s communications sent or received through his personal email concerning his recruitment, hiring, or work for Spire. By accessing these, JGR believes it will show the duties Gabehart has performed for Spire.

• Spire also filed a motion to compel the identification of misappropriated trade secrets, as well as documents and metadata.

• “JGR’s failure to timely identify the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets at issue has prejudiced Spire’s ability to defend itself in this case,” Spire presented.

• Spire said it has been working since late June to review the trade secrets in question, but JGR has allegedly been holding critical metadata back from review.

• In presenting its argument that JGR has failed to specify the misappropriated trade secrets, it identified an admission from JGR that sealing an airbox is a JGR trade secret, something it had allegedly never identified before.

• “Instead, JGR received discovery from Spire arguably indicating that Spire personnel discussed sealing an airbox — a standard practice across all motorsports —and “mold[ed] [its] claims around the discovery [it] receive[d],” Spire argued.

• Spire also argued that JGR never accused Gabehart of misappropriating a single document about sealing airboxes, but that he could have “memorized” something about them.

• Second, Spire accused JGR of weaponizing a clean room it created to protect its “crown jewel” documents. Instead, Spire contended, JGR has used it to significantly hinder Spire’s ability to defend itself.

• Furthermore, Spire averred that JGR has used it to store documents that it now admits are not trade secrets, and has not corrected issues in accessing and viewing the documents.

• Perhaps at the heart of the matter, Spire stated that the large majority of JGR’s documents do not contain complete metadata. In this absence, Spire said it cannot access the origin of the documents in the clean room, cannot view the creation of modification history, or whose devices the documents originated from.

• Spire is also seeking for JGR to produce a privilege log so that it can assess the claims in the privilege. It contested that JGR is withholding documents relating to the privileges presented, and that the documents are communications between JGR’s executive leadership, not attorneys.