Teams Seek to Bar Hendrick from Witness Stand in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit Amid Deposition Dispute

A contentious legal battle within NASCAR has escalated, with 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports filing a motion to prevent Hendrick Motorsports owner Rick Hendrick from testifying as a witness for NASCAR in their ongoing antitrust lawsuit. The motion stems from an inability to schedule a pre-trial deposition for Hendrick, leading the two teams to argue that his inclusion would be prejudicial to their case.

The core of the dispute lies in the scheduling of Hendrick’s deposition, a crucial step in the discovery phase of the lawsuit. Judge Kenneth D. Bell had previously ordered both Hendrick and Roger Penske, prominent figures in the sport and owners of competing NASCAR teams, to submit to oral depositions prior to the trial. This ruling came after NASCAR, with the apparent urging of its chairman Jim France, sought to add them as witnesses late in the process, a move the plaintiffs, 23XI and Front Row, characterized as "sandbagging" and an attempt to disrupt their trial preparations.

The initial deposition for Hendrick was slated for November 18, 2025, at Hendrick Automotive Group’s offices in Charlotte, a location chosen for his convenience. However, according to court filings by 23XI and Front Row, Hendrick’s counsel informed them that he would be unavailable on that date and, crucially, on any other day before the trial commencement on December 1, 2025. Hendrick’s legal team then proposed an alternative: a deposition during the first week of the trial.

This proposed accommodation has been met with strong opposition from the plaintiffs. In their motion, 23XI and Front Row argue that deposing Hendrick during the trial would create significant prejudice. Their attorneys, they contend, will have already finalized their trial strategy, including witness sequencing and courtroom tactics, and will be fully immersed in the proceedings. Diverting legal resources and attention to conduct a deposition at this critical juncture, they assert, would unduly disrupt their focus and preparedness.

Related News :

• Hamlin Vows to Return After Devastating NASCAR Cup Championship Loss
• It’s deja vu for Bell and another NASCAR final four dogfight
• Phoenix Practice Thrown into Chaos by Widespread Tire Failures Ahead of Championship Decider
• Early 2026 NASCAR Cup Championship Odds Reveal Intriguing Favorites and Underdogs
• Daniel Suarez Parts Ways with Trackhouse Racing Amidst Strategic Divergence, Eyes New Horizon with Spire Motorsports

"The prejudice that deposing Mr. Hendrick during trial, which would necessarily include taking counsel away from focusing on the trial itself, is not warranted," the filing states. The teams further attribute the tight scheduling constraints directly to NASCAR, asserting that the sanctioning body’s late disclosure of Hendrick as a witness is the root cause of the issue, making any resulting prejudice "unjustified and unfair."

The lawsuit, filed by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, alleges that NASCAR’s business practices and the structure of its premier Cup Series are anti-competitive and detrimental to the interests of smaller, independent teams. While the specific details of the antitrust claims are extensive, they generally revolve around allegations of monopolistic control over various aspects of the sport, including revenue sharing, race car manufacturing, and the allocation of charter agreements.

The inclusion of Rick Hendrick and Roger Penske as witnesses by NASCAR has been a point of contention. Both men are titans of the motorsport industry, with Hendrick Motorsports being the most dominant organization in NASCAR Cup Series history, boasting an unparalleled record of championships and wins. Penske Racing, while not as historically decorated in NASCAR as Hendrick, is a powerhouse across multiple motorsports disciplines and a significant player in stock car racing. The plaintiffs view their late addition as a strategic maneuver by NASCAR to bolster its defense with high-profile figures, potentially influencing the court or jury.

Judge Bell’s earlier ruling that both Hendrick and Penske must be deposed without restrictions on the scope of questioning underscores the court’s intent to ensure a thorough and transparent discovery process. The judge reportedly dismissed as "absurd" any attempts by Penske and Hendrick to limit deposition questions regarding their race teams’ financials, emphasizing the broad investigatory powers during pre-trial discovery.

NASCAR, in its response to the motion to exclude Hendrick, has pushed back against the plaintiffs’ claims of prejudice. The sanctioning body argues that Hendrick’s testimony in NASCAR’s own case is not scheduled to begin until the week of December 8, a week after the trial officially commences. NASCAR further contends that it can accommodate the plaintiffs by calling Hendrick later in its case-in-chief, thereby providing ample opportunity for his deposition. They point to December 6 and 7 as non-trial days within the first week of December that could be utilized.

Moreover, NASCAR asserts that the plaintiffs have sufficient legal personnel to conduct the deposition, even during the trial. They highlight that 23XI and Front Row have had at least 15 attorneys attend depositions in the case, with at least seven actively taking testimony. The presence of multiple law firm partners representing the plaintiffs, NASCAR argues, negates the claim that their legal team cannot manage a short, 2.5-hour deposition alongside trial responsibilities. Citing precedent, NASCAR notes that courts have routinely ordered parties to make witnesses available for deposition even if it occurs during trial.

The dispute over Hendrick’s availability also involves accusations of inflexibility. NASCAR claims that Hendrick’s counsel had proactively alerted the court to potential scheduling conflicts and expressed a willingness to find alternative arrangements, including virtual depositions. According to NASCAR, it was the plaintiffs who insisted on a rigid, "take-it-or-leave-it" deposition date of November 18, refusing other accommodation options.

Adding another layer to the legal maneuvering, NASCAR has accused 23XI and Front Row of engaging in their own "sandbagging" tactics. They cite the plaintiffs’ recent issuance of a trial subpoena to an accountant from the firm GreerWalker LLP, an individual who, NASCAR claims, does not appear on any witness list or in the plaintiffs’ initial disclosures. This, NASCAR argues, demonstrates a hypocritical stance on the part of the plaintiffs regarding surprise disclosures.

The ultimate objective for NASCAR is to have Rick Hendrick testify in their defense, and they are actively resisting the teams’ attempt to preclude his testimony due to the scheduling imbroglio. The outcome of this motion will have significant implications for the discovery phase and potentially the trial itself, as the court weighs the balance between ensuring timely and thorough discovery and protecting the integrity of the trial proceedings. The ongoing legal saga between these prominent NASCAR entities underscores the high stakes involved in the antitrust litigation that could reshape the future of stock car racing.

💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook

Author Profile

rifan muazin

Latest entries

• Nascar CupNovember 14, 2025Denny Hamlin Secures Coveted Pole Position for NASCAR Cup Series Championship Decider at Phoenix
• Nascar CupNovember 14, 2025Chevrolet Unveils Aggressively Updated Camaro ZL1 Body for 2026 NASCAR Cup Season
• Nascar CupNovember 14, 2025Teams Seek to Bar Hendrick from Witness Stand in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit Amid Deposition Dispute
• Nascar CupNovember 14, 2025Denny Hamlin Displays Uncharacteristic Calm Ahead of NASCAR Championship Showdown