A normal litigation battle just got more interesting, and lawyers around the circuit scratch their heads to figure out what Chris Gabehart’s photos actually mean. At the center of it lies one question: when does presence actually become participation?

A declaration that breaks down JGR’s Bristol claims

Jeff Dickerson’s response to Joe Gibbs Racing’s filing just hits them right at the foundation. JGR’s case mainly revolves around how the images look: the plain, obvious Chris Gabehart in the infield near pit boxes wearing a radio, making a case that he enjoyed a competition role. But Dickerson’s very interesting argument attacks Gabehart’s title, which was Spire’s Chief Motorsports Officer, not its Competition Director.

“As an executive, Mr. Gabehart is expected to be present at and to observe Spire’s various racing teams across a wide range of racing series. Mr. Gabehart is also expected to communicate with members of the team, drivers, other executives, and owners,” said Dickerson, in his lengthy eight-page declaration.

Even Gabehart clarified this clearly. “Two photos in particular illustrate the silliness of JGR’s spies taking pictures so my replacement, Mr. (Wally) Brown, can speak out under oath about what JGR’s lawyers want the Court to believe I was doing.”

“My use of radio equipment and proximity to Spire personnel at Bristol was entirely routine. Hundreds of individuals at NASCAR Cup Series events commonly wear radios when Cup cars are on track and stand in similar proximity to their teams. This is true for executives at JGR, including Coach Gibbs and Dave Alpern, among others, who based off my experience regularly use radio equipment at races,” he said.

The difference in being a Chief Motorsports Officer and a Competition Director is extremely critical. As clarified in the filing, Gabehart’s job was executive, consisting of work like observing teams, interacting with drivers and personnel, and representing the organization. And for all the above, it was essential to stay on the track. Dickerson thus uses the above argument to say that it is pretty clear that his presence alone cannot be treated as evidence of restricted activity.

“As the photographs indicate, I only wore earbuds with no microphone and therefore had no way to communicate via the radio, I could just listen to the radio traffic. Accordingly, I did not discuss any competition-related issues on the radio.” Gabehart further added.

Even more importantly, the filing draws a strict operational line. Spire’s actual Competition Director, Matt McCall, is the one who had the real responsibility, such as two-way communication, data analysis, and in-race adjustments, the ones that are true of a competition director. Even a radio on its own, without a microphone, is a listening device; that’s it. Basically, none of the images tie the function to Gabehart, not even a single one, even the one with the radio.

Concluding simply, Dickerson has tried to turn JGR’s case into a simple misread of assumptions, where his appearance is being mistaken for action, and all the assumptions that the team had replaced evidence visible to a simple racing fan’s eye, or, as we argue further, the law.

Why do the Bristol photographs fail to meet the legal threshold of “active competition involvement”?

The legal threshold for visual inference is far more demanding than what Joe Gibbs Racing portrayed it to be. Under both trade secret principles and those of federal injunctions, evidence must indicate actual or at least threatened functional overlap, not mere presence or access. The photos, as they have been presented, surely establish proximity, with Gabehart in the infield and near pit infrastructure, but in no way establish the execution of his duties as a competition director.

Even in law, this distinction is paramount. Take the example of two case laws:

RLM Communications v. Tuschen – where the Fourth Circuit ruled that access alone cannot sustain a claim, and there must be a reasonable inference of use or misappropriation.

RCR v. McCall, which is NASCAR’s own precedent, plainly states that a shift in title and responsibility can completely, mind you, completely negate claims of competitive overlap.

On function, this gap worsens when you note that Spire’s actual Competition Director, Matt McCall, handled all operational responsibilities. In contrast, Gabehart’s documented conduct lacks any such operational linkage.

Thus, we can reasonably conclude where the case should be ruled, based on how it has been ruled previously, but even before that, one thing is clear: the photographs surely showcase opportunity, but in no way can anyone claim that they establish participation.