Legal Maneuvers Intensify as 23XI and Front Row Seek to Bar Hendrick Motorsports Chairman from NASCAR Trial Testimony

In a significant development within the ongoing antitrust legal battle between 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR, the two independent NASCAR Cup Series teams have filed a motion with the court to exclude Rick Hendrick, the influential chairman of Hendrick Motorsports, from testifying as a witness for the sanctioning body. This strategic move comes in the wake of scheduling conflicts that have prevented Mr. Hendrick from undergoing a required pre-trial deposition, raising accusations of procedural gamesmanship from the plaintiffs.

The core of the dispute lies in the timing and accessibility of Mr. Hendrick’s deposition. U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell had previously ordered both Mr. Hendrick and Roger Penske, another titan of American motorsports and owner of Team Penske, to submit to oral depositions by 23XI and Front Row prior to the commencement of the antitrust trial. This order, issued after an initial resistance from the team owners regarding the scope of questioning, particularly concerning their respective team financials, was seen as a victory for the plaintiffs in their pursuit of comprehensive discovery.

However, a scheduled deposition for Mr. Hendrick on November 18, 2025, at the Hendrick Automotive Group offices in Charlotte, North Carolina, reportedly could not proceed. According to court filings from 23XI and Front Row, Mr. Hendrick’s counsel informed them that the deposition could not take place on the agreed-upon date, and that the witness would be unavailable on any other day before the trial’s scheduled start on December 1, 2025. Instead, Mr. Hendrick’s legal team proposed accommodating the deposition during the first week of the trial.

This proposal, however, has been vehemently opposed by 23XI and Front Row. In their motion to the court, the plaintiffs argue that deposing Mr. Hendrick during the trial itself would create significant prejudice. They contend that their legal strategy, including the precise sequencing of witness testimonies, would be firmly established by the time the trial begins. Diverting legal counsel’s attention from the ongoing trial to conduct a deposition would, in their view, undermine their focus and potentially compromise their presentation of the case. Furthermore, they assert that NASCAR’s late disclosure of Mr. Hendrick as a trial witness, after the close of fact discovery, is the root cause of these scheduling constraints and that any resulting prejudice to the plaintiffs is therefore "unjustified and unfair."

Related News :

The plaintiffs further characterize NASCAR’s actions as "sandbagging," a term implying a deliberate attempt to impede their legal preparation. The decision to identify Mr. Hendrick as a witness so close to the trial date, a mere month before its commencement and after the fact discovery period had concluded, is seen as a tactical maneuver by the sanctioning body. NASCAR chairman Jim France, who is also a defendant in the lawsuit, had reportedly personally requested Mr. Hendrick and Mr. Penske to serve as witnesses.

NASCAR, in its response to the motion, has countered these assertions. The sanctioning body maintains that Mr. Hendrick can indeed provide his deposition during the first week of the trial. They point out that Mr. Hendrick is slated to testify in NASCAR’s own case, which is anticipated to begin the week of December 8, 2025. NASCAR has further offered to accommodate the plaintiffs by scheduling Mr. Hendrick’s testimony later in their case, thereby providing ample opportunity for the deposition to occur after the trial commences on December 1. The response also highlights that December 6 and 7 are non-trial days, offering further scheduling flexibility.

The legal team representing NASCAR also disputes the claim that Mr. Hendrick is being inflexible. They assert that Mr. Hendrick’s counsel diligently communicated potential scheduling issues to the court and noted that the situation was fluid. They also claim that other members of Mr. Hendrick’s legal firm were available to assist. NASCAR’s response further alleges that the plaintiffs have refused numerous accommodation options offered by Mr. Hendrick’s counsel, including the possibility of a virtual deposition, and have instead insisted on the single, non-negotiable date of November 18.

Adding another layer to the procedural wrangling, NASCAR accuses 23XI and Front Row of hypocrisy. They point to a trial subpoena served by the plaintiffs just days prior on an accountant from the firm GreerWalker LLP. This accountant, NASCAR argues, does not appear on any witness list or in any of the plaintiffs’ initial disclosures, suggesting that the plaintiffs themselves have engaged in tactics that could be perceived as "sandbagging."

The underlying antitrust lawsuit, filed by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, centers on allegations that NASCAR’s business practices, particularly its control over the sport’s economics and the distribution of its substantial revenues, are anticompetitive and harmful to independent team owners. The teams argue that NASCAR’s unique position as both the regulator and a major commercial entity within the sport creates an unfair playing field. They seek to have NASCAR’s practices declared illegal under antitrust law and to obtain damages for the alleged harm they have suffered.

Hendrick Motorsports, the most dominant organization in NASCAR Cup Series history, boasts an unparalleled record of success. Founded by Rick Hendrick in 1984, the organization has secured 14 Cup Series championships, 290 Cup Series wins, and numerous accolades across various NASCAR divisions. This deep involvement and success within the sport make Mr. Hendrick a significant figure, and his testimony, whether for or against NASCAR’s practices, could carry considerable weight. Similarly, Roger Penske’s influence through Team Penske, another powerhouse in motorsports with a rich history of success in NASCAR and other disciplines, underscores the importance of his potential testimony.

The court’s ultimate decision on the motion to exclude Mr. Hendrick’s testimony will be a critical juncture in the pre-trial phase of this high-stakes litigation. The ability of 23XI and Front Row to secure crucial pre-trial testimony from key figures associated with NASCAR and its affiliated entities, like Hendrick Motorsports, is fundamental to their case. Conversely, NASCAR’s efforts to ensure the testimony of its chosen witnesses, even amidst scheduling complexities, are vital to its defense.

The legal battle underscores the complex interplay between the business and regulatory aspects of professional sports, particularly in a sport as intricate and commercially driven as NASCAR. As the trial date looms, these legal maneuvers highlight the strategic importance of discovery and witness testimony in shaping the narrative and potential outcome of the antitrust proceedings. Judge Bell’s subsequent order, directing Mr. Hendrick to find time for a deposition prior to trial, indicates a judicial inclination towards ensuring discovery proceeds, albeit with a directive for cooperation from all parties involved. The specific outcome of this scheduling dispute, and its broader implications for the trial, remain to be seen.