Things are getting messy off the track for Joe Gibbs Racing! And this time, it’s not about finishes or strategy calls. What started as a contract dispute involving ex-crew chief Chris Gabehart has now turned into a full-blown legal battle, with Spire Motorsports pushing back hard in the JGR lawsuit. And just when JGR seemed to be in control, a new filing has flipped the narrative, raising serious questions about how this fight might actually end.

Spire fires back as JGR lawsuit battle intensifies

“Despite the production of hundreds of documents in expedited discovery, there remains no evidence to support misappropriation claims against Spire. Not a single document in either JGR’s or Gabehart’s production so much as suggests that Spire ever received or otherwise had access to any of JGR’s confidential information. In the absence of any evidence of misappropriation by Spire, JGR has failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on its trade secrets claims, so its motion for a preliminary injunction on this claim as to Spire should be denied.”

That statement from Spire Motorsports cuts right to the heart of the dispute in the JGR lawsuit and directly challenges Joe Gibbs Racing’s central claim. JGR initially filed the lawsuit against former competition director Chris Gabehart, accusing him of orchestrating what they described as a “brazen scheme” to take sensitive internal data to benefit Spire.

According to JGR, suspicions were raised after Gabehart’s departure on November 10, when the team requested his work computer for forensic analysis. That’s where things escalated. JGR alleges Gabehart accessed proprietary data and even used his personal phone to photograph his laptop screen.

This is an act they claim was meant to bypass internal tracking systems and conceal the transfer of confidential information. But Spire’s latest filing paints a very different picture, where, despite extensive document production and review, there’s no concrete proof that any of that information ever made its way to them.

Meanwhile, Gabehart’s career has already felt the impact. After joining Spire as its chief motorsports officer in February, a federal judge ruled earlier this month that he could remain employed. But, not in the same capacity he held at JGR. With both sides digging in, the JGR lawsuit is quickly becoming less about allegations and more about what can actually be proven in court.

Deleted messages add fuel to JGR’s claims

“Gabehart has now admitted the deletion of an unknown number of responsive text messages with Spire’s co-owner, Jeff Dickerson—communications deleted in the days immediately following his misappropriation—depriving JGR of critical evidence and warranting an adverse inference that the deleted messages would have further implicated both Defendants in the joint misappropriation of JGR’s trade secrets.”

That explosive claim from Joe Gibbs Racing shifts the spotlight back onto Chris Gabehart, raising fresh questions about what exactly was discussed. And more specifically, why those messages no longer exist. While Spire Motorsports has strongly denied receiving any proprietary data, JGR is now leaning on the absence of evidence as part of its argument, suggesting the deletions themselves could imply wrongdoing.

Beyond that, JGR is pushing for stricter oversight in the JGR lawsuit. The team has asked the court to require both Gabehart and Spire to clearly outline his day-to-day responsibilities as Chief Motorsports Officer. The goal? To ensure compliance with the existing temporary restraining order, which allows Gabehart to work, but not in any role overlapping with his former duties as JGR’s competition director.

JGR also argues that Gabehart’s departure wasn’t handled in a way that would trigger a short non-compete window, further complicating the contractual dispute. On the other side, Gabehart maintains that JGR breached their agreement first by halting his pay, a move the organization defends as necessary once they believed he posed a risk of sharing sensitive information.

Now, all eyes turn to the courtroom, where these claims (and counterclaims) will be argued before Judge Susan C. Rodriguez.