Here’s What Happened With the JGR vs. Chris Gabehart/Spire Lawsuit This Week (March 14-20)

Joe Gibbs Racing’s lawsuit against its former competition director Chris Gabehart hit the accelerator this week, with a preliminary injunction hearing taking place at the Western District of North Carolina on Monday, March 16 .

JGR alleges that Gabehart, who departed the team on Nov. 10 and was terminated on Feb. 9, misappropriated confidential information and trade secrets by sharing it with Spire Motorsports, Gabehart’s new employer.

Here’s everything you need to know that happened this past week.

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

• On Saturday, March 14, JGR filed a reply memorandum supporting its case for expedited discovery, which the team filed in February to obtain documents detailing Gabehart’s communication with Spire during the noncompete period of his separation agreement.
  
• In the filing, JGR reiterated its belief that Gabehart deleted files containing confidential information under a folder labeled “Spire” on his Google Drive. Additionally, the team accused Gabehart of avoiding limited expedited discovery in an effort to identify his communication with Spire.
  
• Responding to a claim from Spire in the March 11 filings that JGR had no evidence of suffering irreparable harm without expedited discovery, JGR defended its case for discovery, noting that it would suffer the most damage during the 2026 NASCAR Cup Series season since its already several weeks in.
  
• In the filing, JGR stated, “Every race that Gabehart and Spire compete using JGR’s proprietary strategies and technical information inflicts irreparable harm on JGR, whether through direct competitive disadvantage or through JGR being forced to compete without knowing if its “secret sauce” is being deployed against it.”

• JGR also maintained that the forensic review conducted by Reliance Forensic’s Clark Walton did not provide evidence that Gabehart refrained from disclosing any confidential information to Spire. Though Gabehart has repeatedly stated that the examination showed he did not share any information.

• The organization proceeded to double down on its accusations that Gabehart used its confidential information and trade secrets after his departure, insisting that, “The most logical inference from this evidence is that Gabehart repeatedly accessed those files to use them for the benefit of Spire.”

• Additionally, JGR alleged that Spire has opposed disclosing any communication between two of its senior officials and Gabehart after belief that it was willing to provide JGR with assurance it didn’t receive or use any confidential information.

• JGR also denounced Gabehart’s and Spire’s claims that its motion for expedited discovery cannot be granted before the preliminary injunction or that JGR waited too long to file for discovery, citing previous cases that saw longer periods of time before expedited discovery was filed.

• According to Walton’s forensic review, JGR contended that Gabehart deleted files from his “Spire” folder, putting JGR at risk for additional harm. The team also claimed that Gabehart refused to let Walton examine an undisclosed Microsoft OneDrive account that it believes he could have transferred confidential material to.

• In closing portions of its filing, JGR stated that reciprocal discovery requested by Gabehart and Spire to review the conditions of Gabehart’s noncompete clause as well as if he was terminated “without cause” were unsupported and in violation of Local Civil Rule, which prohibits parties from filing motions in responses.

• JGR additionally filed a reply in support of its preliminary injunction. The filing began with the team denouncing a previous response from Gabehart that his noncompete provision wasn’t enforceable.

• In its defense, JGR cited previous cases that support its enforcing of noncompete terms and accused Gabehart of contradictory statements surrounding the comparison between his work at JGR and Spire.

• Furthermore, JGR alleged that Gabehart is performing similar duties at Spire to his former role, using a statement made by Gabehart of, “There’s certainly some subject matter overlap [between the positions],” in support of its claims. The team also referred to Gabehart’s affirmation that his responsibilities at Spire include its NASCAR Cup Series team.

• JGR contested Gabehart’s claims that his noncompete clause was reduced to one week, claiming this was inaccurate because he “failed to satisfy multiple material conditions.”

• Citing a three-step procedure of Section 6, paragraph 2 of the separation agreement, JGR first alleged that Gabehart didn’t give notice in “good faith.” The reply accused Gabehart of not acting with “honesty in belief and purpose” by having employment discussions with Spire prior to a Nov. 6 meeting with JGR owner Joe Gibbs in which Gabehart gave notice he intended to leave.

• The team also contested that Gabehart didn’t present solutions to his frustration with JGR, nor how the nature of the job didn’t meet expectations, only providing criticism instead.

• JGR also stated that another condition Gabehart violated was in relation to a term that JGR had 60 days to attempt to resolve any issues Gabehart brought forward regarding his employment. However, the team alleged that Gabehart violated this by seeking a separation between the two sides.

• Additionally, JGR replied to a previous accusation by Spire and Gabehart that it had breached the separation agreement by not fully compensating Gabehart and delaying his bonus payouts. In its response, JGR outlined how it paid Gabehart through his supposed last day of employment on Nov. 10.

• Furthermore, JGR claimed that it had 45 days to pay Gabehart his performance bonuses starting on Nov. 18. However, due to its allegations that he misappropriated its confidential information, JGR paid Gabehart on Jan. 19 after conducting negotiations with his counsel to conduct a forensic examination as a result of the alleged misappropriation of confidential information.

• In the closing sections of its response, JGR objected to Spire’s claims that it did not have previous knowledge of Gabehart’s noncompete agreement. Instead, it claimed that Spire co-owner and CEO Jeff Dickerson did not seek affirmation of Gabehart’s claims that he had a one-week noncompete agreement following Nov. 11, 2025.

• The team also questioned why Gabehart would search “indemnify” on the internet on Dec. 4, 2025, hours after JGR Chief Commercial Officer Eric Schaffer called Spire’s president Bill Anthony with concerns of Spire hiring Gabehart. “Indemnify” means compensating one for loss or damage.

• JGR further maintained its complaint at the heart of the motion for a preliminary injunction: that Gabehart and Spire misappropriated confidential information and trade secrets, and that JGR has continued to suffer irreparable harm as a result.

• The hearing on March 16 presided over by Judge Susan Courtwright Rodriguez was initially set for both a motion on a preliminary injunction and for expedited discovery. However, both parties came to an agreement that the motion for discovery was the most important matter, resulting in the preliminary injunction motion being tabled until a March 26 hearing.

• Notable people at the hearing included Gibbs, Heather Gibbs, Dave Alpern (JGR’s president), Gabehart and Dickerson.

• In an exhibit list provided to the court, JGR revealed what was included and prohibited in its limited pre-litigation forensic review examined by Walton.

• JGR said it was able to inspect Gabehart’s personal cell phone and the Google Drive that was synched with his JGR laptop, but certain contents of both were prohibited.

• The team also listed devices and accounts that Gabehart and counsel did not permit for inspection, which included Gabehart’s laptop and email, an undisclosed Microsoft OneDrive account and file sharing accounts.

• The team’s motion for expedited discovery requested that communications between Gabehart and Spire co-owners Dickerson and Dan Towriss from August 1, 2025, to the present be produced.

• Additionally, the team requested third-party subpoenas of several team owners and senior officials, including Haas Factory Team President Joe Custer, Trackhouse Racing owner Justin Marks and President of Racing Operations Todd Meredith and Rick Ware Racing owner Rick Ware and Competition Director Tommy Baldwin.

• JGR attorney Sarah Hutchins argued that the need for these subpoenas was based on evidence that Spire possessed JGR’s trade secrets.

• According to Motorsport‘s Matt Weaver, Judge Rodgriguez responded by saying JGR’s allegations were “concerning,” but continued that “I can’t give you carte blanche … I need specifics.” To which Hutchins said she would obtain more information.

• Judge Rodriguez ultimately denied the request for the subpoenas “without prejudice,” but did leave the door open for the matter to be revisited in an additional hearing.

• According to Weaver, it was also revealed during the hearing that Gabehart had purchased a new computer on Nov. 15, which had not been imaged in a forensic review. Though Gabehart’s attorney Cary B. Davis initially said “every device in question for discovery had been imaged,” before later confirming it had not been imaged.

• Judge Rodriguez reprimanded Davis for this, stating, ““I am scratching my head over why one of Mr. Gabehart’s computers has not been imaged.”

• Hutchins also questioned why Gabehart continued to access files synched with his JGR laptop under the “Spire” folder, including one named “Project Howler, ” according to Walton’s allegations that the files were interacted with through Nov. 23, nearly two weeks after Gabehart departed the team.

• Judge Rodriguez told both parties that ‘misappropriation” can also include acquisition and possession, stating that this hasn’t been presented enough thus far.
  
• Ultimately, Judge Rodriguez issued the following orders based on the arguments presented by both parties.

• She denied JGR’s request for early discovery on Spire without prejudice.

• She denied Spire’s request for reciprocal discovery without prejudice.

• She granted JGR’s request for early discovery on Gabehart’s documents detailing communications between he, Dickerson and Towriss. Though the time frame was limited to Oct. 1-March 13.

• She granted narrowly tailored reciprocal discovery to Gabehart over non-privileged documents between JGR executives that discuss their understanding of his separation agreement, its understanding of Gabehart notifying the team of his intent to leave and his compensation.

• She extended a temporary restraining order on Gabehart through March 26, which prohibits him from performing any duties at Spire that resemble his previous role at JGR. Gabehart is allowed to continue his work for Spire.

• Both parties have until March 23 to file responses and until March 25 for supplemental filings before the March 26 hearing.