Joe Gibbs Racing is pursuing a court order demanding Spire Motorsports disclose its 2025 and 2026 race set‑ups, claiming the information was derived from former JGR personnel.
Depositions Reveal Possible Leaks of JGR Trade Secrets
Spire technical director Dax Gerringer was deposed on August 20, and crew chief Travis Peterson on August 25. The sealed depositions form the core of JGR’s evidence that “Gabehart is using proprietary information at Spire.”
Peterson recounted that, during a Cup Series race early in 2026, Gabehart shared JGR’s tire pressure and spring settings. In particular, Peterson noted Gabehart mentioned a pressure range “used by JGR” and a specific numeric spring range.
Gerringer testified that Gabehart attended post‑race debriefs in Kansas (April 20, 2026), Atlanta (February 23, 2026), and Dover (May 18, 2026), offering input that JGR said mirrored its own data. Gerringer further claimed Gabehart’s November 2025 “Focus Plan” mirrored JGR’s roadmap for implementing trade‑secret knowledge at Spire.
Spire’s competition director Matt McCall confirmed that Gabehart had not been involved in the competition side, contradicting JGR’s assertion that he had attended and actively contributed to competition meetings.
Judge to Decide Whether Non‑Party Discovery Is Justified
The court faces a pivotal question: does the deposition testimony offer the “at least a scintilla of evidence” JGR requires to compel production? Judge Susan C. Rodriguez must weigh the relevance of the at‑hour data against the potential intrusion on Spire’s confidentiality.
Gabehart Seeks Toyota Documents as Part of Counter‑Suits
In a separate motion, Chris Gabehart seeks a subpoena against Toyota Racing Development for communications about the termination of a long‑time JGR competition employee. The request is justified by a declaration from Andy Graves—prepared by JGR counsel—asserting that Gabehart accessed critical team information.
Toyota lawyer Nate Pencock replied that the alleged requests lack relevance to the case, noting that neither Gabehart’s defense nor counter‑claim involves Toyota. Pencock also warned that an enterprise‑wide search could expose trade secrets and impose undue cost on the non‑party.
Moving Forward: Compulsion or Rejection of Toyota’s Subpoena?
Gabehart’s motion to compel calls for a court order to override Toyota’s objections, demanding a vast production of competitively sensitive documents. The motion explicitly states that JGR expects no direct relevance to any claim or defense presented by Toyota. The court must balance the potential burden against the need to uncover evidence of alleged misuse of proprietary data.
"