Penske, Hendrick Contest Scope of Deposition in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit

Charlotte, NC – In a significant development within the ongoing antitrust lawsuit filed by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR, racing titans Roger Penske and Rick Hendrick have formally petitioned the court to limit the scope of their compelled depositions. The motion, filed just days after they were initially ordered to testify, seeks to restrict the lines of questioning to non-confidential matters directly related to public statements they made advocating for a settlement between the parties.

The core of the dispute lies in the plaintiffs’ (23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports) alleged attempt to broaden the deposition inquiry beyond the limited scope initially agreed upon. According to court documents filed by attorneys representing Penske and Hendrick, NASCAR executives, including Jim France, approached both legends seeking their willingness to provide testimony at trial. This testimony was to be specifically confined to the "high-level contents" of declarations they had previously submitted.

"Movants find themselves, quickly and without much warning, in the unenviable position of being forced to give expansive and unnecessary deposition testimony as a result of wrangling between the parties to a lawsuit that should have settled long before now," the motion states. "As explained in greater detail below, Messrs. Hendrick and Penske, in view of their decades-long relationship with Jim France, agreed to give limited testimony regarding non-confidential matters at the trial of this case, but in a way that did not force them to ‘take sides’ in this lawsuit – something which both men have made clear that they cannot and will not do. That has now morphed into an effort by the Plaintiffs to seek testimony potentially regarding HMS’s and Penske’s highly confidential financial and other business information."

Hendrick Motorsports (HMS) and Penske Racing (PRS), two of the most dominant and successful organizations in NASCAR history, are not direct parties to the lawsuit. However, their involvement has been drawn into the proceedings, with the plaintiffs claiming NASCAR "sandbagged" them by naming Penske and Hendrick to a witness list without allowing adequate time for discovery and due diligence.

Related News :

Adam Ross, the legal representative for Hendrick and Penske, clarified that NASCAR’s initial outreach was solely related to the settlement advocacy statements. He detailed how Mr. France and his counsel separately approached Hendrick and Penske, particularly highlighting that Mr. Hendrick was approached at the NASCAR awards banquet following the championship win.

"In just the past few days (and in Mr. Hendrick’s case, at the NASCAR awards banquet following the championship win), Mr. France and his counsel approached Messrs. Hendrick and Penske (separately) and asked if they would be willing to give testimony at trial specifically limited to the high-level contents of the Declarations that both men submitted a number of weeks ago," the motion outlines. "Neither man wants to play any role in this lawsuit whatsoever and have made clear that they will not ‘take sides’ in this case. However, in view of their decades-long relationship with Mr. France, they agreed to provide the requested limited scope of testimony if required by a duly served subpoena."

The crux of the objection from Penske and Hendrick centers on the plaintiffs’ alleged intent to delve into highly sensitive and proprietary information. This includes their respective teams’ financial records, private communications surrounding the negotiations that led to the initial 2016 Charter Agreement, and other confidential business matters.

"Immediately after Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave on Wednesday, but before this Court granted the Motion, counsel for the Parties met and conferred with the undersigned counsel," the motion reveals. "The undersigned counsel explained that NASCAR had agreed to limit the scope of trial testimony to the Declarations, and so long as the Plaintiffs limited their questioning to that narrow lane of questioning, a compromise could be reached allowing for the depositions to occur without objection. Plaintiffs refused and made clear that they intended to ask numerous questions of both men regarding their respective race teams’ highly confidential business and financial records, private communications regarding the negotiations leading up to the initial 2016 Charter Agreement, and other highly confidential topics."

The legal team for Penske and Hendrick is drawing parallels to a previous court order issued on June 25, 2025, which they assert "significantly limits" the information that non-party teams are obligated to provide. This prior order established a protocol for teams to submit broad financial data concerning average per-car numbers through a third party, crucially without any identifying information attached. This anonymized data submission was presented as a compromise by the non-party teams to the court.

"Recognizing the limited relevance of non-party teams’ financial information to the parties’ claims and defenses, as well as the risks and burden to the teams, the Court refused to require HMS, PRS, or any other non-party team to produce to NASCAR any financial information other than in an anonymous and untraceable format," the motion argues. "The testimony that Plaintiffs now seek will undermine the entirety of the Court’s decision as related to HMS and PRS and potentially allow the Parties (or the media or general public) to ‘reverse engineer’ the anonymized team information to back out HMS and PRS in an effort to identify the sources of the other team information."

Beyond the confidentiality concerns, Penske and Hendrick also cite the burdensome timing of these depositions, which are occurring in close proximity to Thanksgiving and the upcoming trial. They are requesting the court permit their depositions to be conducted remotely via Zoom and strictly adhere to the limited scope that upholds the protections established by the June order.

"HMS and PRS compete directly with both NASCAR and Plaintiffs for sponsors and employees, as well as on the track. Disclosure of HMS’s and PRS’s financial and business information would thus be incredibly burdensome and harmful," the motion emphasizes. "Moreover, HMS or PRS have little confidence that a protective order would maintain the confidentiality of any such information – whether in a deposition or ultimately at trial – given the First Amendment and common law rights of access already recognized by this Court."

The filing concludes by reiterating the perceived lack of compelling need for the plaintiffs to access HMS’s and PRS’s confidential financial and business information. They contend that even questions about the anonymized average per-car data could inadvertently lead to the identification of specific teams, thereby contravening the court’s prior order aimed at protecting such sensitive information.

The lawsuit by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports alleges that NASCAR has engaged in anticompetitive practices, particularly concerning the charter system, which they claim stifles competition and limits the ability of teams to operate independently and profitably. The deposition of prominent figures like Penske and Hendrick, even if limited in scope, underscores the high stakes and the intricate web of relationships within the sport’s power structure. The court’s decision on this motion will be critical in shaping the trajectory of discovery and the eventual presentation of evidence in this landmark antitrust case.