Teams Seek to Bar Hendrick Testimony as NASCAR Trial Deposition Dispute Escalates

A legal wrangle over witness depositions has intensified in the antitrust lawsuit filed by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR, with the two plaintiff teams formally requesting the court to exclude the testimony of Hendrick Automotive Group chairman Rick Hendrick. The motion stems from a scheduling conflict that has prevented Hendrick from undergoing a pre-trial oral deposition, a process mandated by a recent court order.

The dispute centers on Hendrick’s availability for a deposition, which was initially scheduled for November 18, 2025, at Hendrick Automotive Group’s offices in Charlotte. However, according to court filings by 23XI and Front Row, Hendrick’s counsel informed them that the deposition could not proceed on that date, and the witness is unavailable on any other day prior to the trial’s commencement on December 1, 2025. Hendrick’s legal team subsequently offered an alternative: to depose him during the first week of the trial.

This proposed arrangement has been met with strong opposition from 23XI and Front Row, who argue that deposing Hendrick during the trial would be "prejudicial" to their case. Their motion states that by the time the trial begins, their legal counsel will have finalized their trial strategy, including the precise timing for presenting witnesses. Engaging in a lengthy deposition during this critical phase, they contend, would necessarily divert attorneys’ attention away from the ongoing trial proceedings. The plaintiffs assert that this prejudice is "unjustified and unfair," attributing the tight scheduling constraints to NASCAR’s "late disclosure of Mr. Hendrick as a trial witness."

The inclusion of Rick Hendrick as a witness came at the behest of NASCAR chairman Jim France, who is also a defendant in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs accuse NASCAR of "sandbagging" their participation by naming Hendrick, along with Roger Penske, as witnesses only a month before the trial and after the conclusion of fact discovery. This move, they argue, was designed to disrupt their preparations.

Related News :

The court, under Judge Kenneth D. Bell, had previously ordered both Rick Hendrick and Roger Penske to submit to oral depositions without restrictions on the scope of questioning, particularly concerning their race teams’ financials. Judge Bell reportedly found it "absurd" that Penske and Hendrick would attempt to limit inquiries into financial matters.

NASCAR, in its response to the motion to exclude Hendrick, has argued that the deposition can indeed take place during the first week of the trial. The sanctioning body’s filing points out that Hendrick is scheduled to testify in NASCAR’s own case, which is not expected to commence until the week of December 8, 2025. NASCAR further asserts its willingness to accommodate the plaintiffs by calling Hendrick later in their presentation of evidence. This, they claim, would provide "numerous days" for 23XI and Front Row to secure the deposition, including non-trial days on December 6 and 7.

The response also highlights the plaintiff’s legal resources, stating that "plenty of attorneys" are available to conduct the deposition, even during the trial. NASCAR notes that the plaintiffs have assured Hendrick’s counsel and NASCAR that the deposition questioning will not exceed 2.5 hours, a relatively short duration. They point to the presence of at least 15 attorneys representing the plaintiffs in this case, with at least seven having taken deposition testimony and five law firm partners having noticed appearances. The response cites precedent, referencing Kunzman v. Enron Corp., to support the idea that courts have ordered witnesses to be available for deposition even during trial.

NASCAR also contests the characterization of Hendrick as inflexible. According to NASCAR’s filing, Hendrick’s counsel "diligently alerted the Court to the possibility of the deposition needing to occur on December 1 or later, but noted that the situation is in flux." They further claim that other members of Hendrick’s legal team are available to assist and that Hendrick’s counsel has offered "numerous options to accommodate the deposition, including the possibility of a virtual deposition." NASCAR alleges that the plaintiffs "refused such accommodation and insisted on the take-it-or-leave-it Tuesday, November 18 deposition."

Adding another layer to the legal skirmish, NASCAR accuses 23XI and Front Row of hypocrisy, alleging they themselves engaged in "sandbagged" conduct by serving a trial subpoena on an accountant from GreerWalker LLP. This accountant, NASCAR contends, does not appear on any witness list or initial disclosures provided by the plaintiffs.

The core of the ongoing legal battle revolves around the plaintiffs’ allegations that NASCAR’s business model and its control over the sport constitute an illegal monopoly, stifling competition and innovation among teams. 23XI Racing, co-owned by NBA legend Michael Jordan, and Front Row Motorsports, a long-standing NASCAR entrant, argue that NASCAR’s practices, including its control over charter agreements and revenue distribution, unfairly benefit certain entities and hinder the growth of others.

The antitrust lawsuit seeks to dismantle what the plaintiffs describe as NASCAR’s anti-competitive practices. The inclusion of prominent figures like Rick Hendrick and Roger Penske, who lead massive, successful racing organizations, is seen by NASCAR as crucial to its defense, potentially offering insights into the business realities and operational structures within the sport. Conversely, the plaintiffs’ desire to depose them before trial is aimed at uncovering evidence that supports their claims of market manipulation and unfair practices.

The court’s eventual decision on the motion to exclude Hendrick’s testimony will have significant implications for the trial’s trajectory and the evidence presented. The ongoing procedural battles highlight the complex legal landscape surrounding professional sports leagues and the challenges faced by teams seeking to challenge established governing bodies. The judge’s latest order, directing Hendrick to find time for a deposition prior to the trial, underscores the court’s intent to ensure a fair and thorough examination of the facts before the December 1 start date.