rifan muazin
In a significant development within the ongoing antitrust lawsuit filed by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR, the two race teams have formally requested the court to exclude the testimony of Rick Hendrick, chairman of Hendrick Automotive Group and a pivotal figure in the sport, from the upcoming trial. This motion stems from an inability to secure a pre-trial deposition of Mr. Hendrick, creating a scheduling conflict that the teams argue prejudices their case.
The dispute centers on a court order mandating that both Rick Hendrick and Roger Penske, another prominent team owner, submit to oral depositions prior to the trial. While Roger Penske has reportedly found a suitable time, Mr. Hendrick’s schedule has presented a persistent obstacle. According to court filings by 23XI and Front Row, an initial deposition was scheduled for November 18, 2025, at Hendrick Automotive Group’s Charlotte offices, chosen for Mr. Hendrick’s convenience. However, "for reasons disclosed to the Court," Mr. Hendrick became unavailable for this date and, crucially, for any other date prior to the December 1, 2025 trial commencement.
Mr. Hendrick’s legal counsel subsequently proposed an alternative: conducting the deposition during the first week of the trial. This proposal, however, was met with strong opposition from 23XI and Front Row. The teams contend that such a arrangement would be "prejudicial" because their legal team will have already solidified their trial strategy, including the precise timing for presenting witnesses. Furthermore, their counsel would be "fully engaged with the trial itself," making it difficult to allocate the necessary time and focus for a lengthy deposition. The teams emphasized that "the prejudice that deposing Mr. Hendrick during trial, which would necessarily include taking counsel away from focusing on the trial itself, is not warranted." They further attribute the "tight scheduling constraints" to NASCAR’s late disclosure of Mr. Hendrick as a trial witness, arguing that this "prejudice to Plaintiffs is unjustified and unfair."
The inclusion of both Hendrick and Penske as witnesses was reportedly at the behest of NASCAR chairman Jim France, who is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The timing of this disclosure, approximately one month before the trial and after the close of fact discovery, has been characterized by the plaintiff teams as an act of "sandbagging" – an attempt to gain an unfair advantage by withholding key information until the last possible moment.
Related News :
- Chase Elliott Dominates NASCAR’s Popularity Poll for Eighth Consecutive Year
- NASCAR Unveils New Technical Regulations, Paving the Way for Expanded Manufacturer Landscape
- Chase Elliott Continues Reign as NASCAR Cup Series Most Popular Driver, Securing Eighth Consecutive Accolade
- NASCAR Lays the Groundwork for Expanded Manufacturer Field with Comprehensive Rulebook Adjustments
- NASCAR Stars Shine as Nominees for Prestigious Autosport Awards Fan Vote
This is not the first time Judge Kenneth D. Bell has intervened in the deposition process. Earlier, he issued a ruling compelling both Hendrick and Penske to participate in oral depositions without restrictions on the scope of questioning. Judge Bell reportedly deemed it "absurd" for Penske and Hendrick to attempt to limit inquiries into their race teams’ financial operations, indicating a broad mandate for transparency.
NASCAR has since filed a response to the teams’ motion to exclude Hendrick’s testimony. In their filing, NASCAR maintains that Mr. Hendrick can indeed provide his deposition during the initial week of the trial. They point out that Mr. Hendrick is scheduled to testify in NASCAR’s case, which is anticipated to commence the week of December 8, following the December 1 trial start date. NASCAR also claims they can further accommodate the plaintiffs by scheduling Mr. Hendrick’s testimony later in their own case presentation. This, they argue, would provide "numerous days" for 23XI and Front Row to secure the deposition, including two non-trial days on December 6 and 7.
Furthermore, NASCAR asserts that the plaintiffs possess ample legal resources to conduct the deposition, even during the trial. They highlight that 23XI and Front Row have previously reassured Mr. Hendrick’s counsel and NASCAR that the deposition questioning would not exceed 2.5 hours. The filing notes that "Plaintiffs have had at least 15 attorneys attend depositions in this case, with at least 7 Plaintiffs’ attorneys taking deposition testimony." It also states that "at least five law firm partners have noticed appearances on behalf of Plaintiffs," suggesting a robust legal team capable of managing multiple tasks simultaneously. Citing legal precedent, NASCAR references Kunzman v. Enron Corp. to support the notion that courts have ordered parties to "make witnesses available for deposition in advance of their testimony in court, even if such depositions must be taken during trial."
NASCAR also disputes the characterization of Mr. Hendrick as inflexible. According to their response, Mr. 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, and other members of the law firm representing Mr. Hendrick are available to assist." The filing claims that Mr. Hendrick’s counsel has offered "numerous options to accommodate the deposition, including the possibility of a virtual deposition." NASCAR alleges that the plaintiffs, however, "have refused such accommodation and insisted on the take-it-or-leave-it Tuesday, November 18 deposition."
Adding another layer to the legal maneuvering, NASCAR accuses 23XI and Front Row of hypocrisy, suggesting their claims of prejudice and surprise are unfounded given their own recent actions. They point to a trial subpoena served by the plaintiffs on an accountant from GreerWalker LLP, an individual who was neither on any witness list nor included in the plaintiffs’ initial disclosures. NASCAR characterizes this subpoena as a "sandbagged" move by the teams themselves.
The core of NASCAR’s argument is that they intend for Mr. Hendrick to testify on their behalf and are resisting the teams’ attempt to preclude his testimony simply because they have encountered scheduling difficulties in obtaining his deposition in advance of the trial. The situation underscores the intricate legal strategies and tactical maneuvers unfolding as the antitrust trial approaches, with both sides seeking to control the narrative and the evidence presented to the court. The outcome of this motion could significantly impact the flow of testimony and the overall presentation of the case, which centers on allegations of anti-competitive practices by NASCAR in relation to its sanctioning of the sport. The financial implications and the future structure of NASCAR’s business model are believed to be at the heart of this high-stakes legal contest.
💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook
Author Profile
Latest entries
Nascar CupDecember 14, 2025Phenomenal Teenager Keelan Harvick Shatters Records as Youngest Snowflake 125 Champion- Nascar CupDecember 14, 2025NASCAR’s 2025 Season Delivers Edge-of-Your-Seat Finishes, Truck Series Claims Closest Contest
- Nascar CupDecember 14, 2025Chevrolet Unveils Aggressively Redesigned Camaro ZL1 for 2026 NASCAR Cup Season
- Nascar CupDecember 14, 2025Denny Hamlin Commits to NASCAR Cup Series Through 2026, Reflects on Phoenix Heartbreak and Future
arthur roy sitompul
Anshari Taslim
Ali Akbar Rosady