rifan muazinTwo of NASCAR’s most prominent team owners, Roger Penske and Rick Hendrick, are actively challenging a recent court order compelling their deposition in the ongoing antitrust lawsuit filed by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR. The legendary figures, who were recently asked to provide testimony, are now seeking to significantly narrow the scope of their involvement, citing concerns over the confidentiality of their business operations and a desire to remain neutral in the dispute.
The legal maneuvering follows a motion filed by the plaintiffs, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, who argued that NASCAR had “sandbagged” them by naming Penske and Hendrick to a witness list without affording them adequate opportunity for discovery and due diligence. This prompted a court order for depositions, which have already begun earlier in the week.
However, legal representatives for Penske and Hendrick, led by attorney Adam Ross, have quickly filed a motion to limit the parameters of any further questioning. Their filing expresses a strong desire to avoid being drawn into the heart of the lawsuit, emphasizing their decades-long relationships with NASCAR leadership, particularly Jim France.
"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. It further clarifies that both Penske and Hendrick had initially agreed to provide limited testimony regarding non-confidential matters at the trial, specifically related to statements they had issued urging a settlement between the parties. This agreement was contingent on not being forced to "take sides" in the lawsuit, a position they have consistently maintained.
Related News :
- Shane van Gisbergen’s Iconic No. 97 Red Bull Livery Unveiled for 2026 NASCAR Cup Season Debut
- Denny Hamlin Radiates Confidence Ahead of NASCAR Championship Showdown at Phoenix
- NASCAR Explored Unprecedented Joint TV Rights Venture with IndyCar Amidst Market Shifts
- NASCAR Unveils "RISING" Documentary Series, Offering Unfiltered Glimpse into Young Talent with Hocevar, Love, and Caruth
- NASCAR Leadership Viewed Superstar Racing Experience as a Threat, Internal Communications Reveal
The motion argues that the plaintiffs’ current request has "morphed into an effort… to seek testimony potentially regarding HMS’s and Penske’s highly confidential financial and other business information." This includes inquiries into their respective race teams’ financial records and the intricate negotiations that preceded the initial 2016 Charter Agreement, matters which Penske and Hendrick deem inappropriate for public disclosure in this context.
The legal team representing Penske and Hendrick further detailed that NASCAR officials, including Mr. France, approached them in the recent days – including at the NASCAR awards banquet following the championship win – to gauge their willingness to testify. The testimony sought by NASCAR was specifically to be limited to the "high-level contents of the Declarations" both men had previously submitted.
"Neither man wants to play any role in this lawsuit whatsoever and have made clear that they will not ‘take sides’ in this case," the motion reiterates. "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 current dispute lies in the plaintiffs’ alleged refusal to adhere to this limited scope. According to the motion, counsel for the parties met and conferred after the plaintiffs filed their motion. The undersigned counsel explained that NASCAR had agreed to restrict trial testimony to the submitted Declarations. A compromise was proposed, allowing depositions to proceed without objection if plaintiffs confined their questioning to that narrow lane. However, the motion claims that the 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."
This proposed line of questioning, the motion contends, directly contravenes a court order issued on June 25, 2025. This prior order "significantly limits" the information that non-party teams like Hendrick Motorsports (HMS) and Penske Racing (PRS) are required to provide. At that time, the court agreed with the suggestion of non-party teams that financial records should be submitted through a third party, in an anonymous and untraceable format, 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 current deposition demands, according to the motion, would "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."
Adding to their concerns, Penske and Hendrick also highlight the burdensome timing of these depositions, occurring in close proximity to Thanksgiving and the anticipated trial date. They are requesting that any deposition proceedings be conducted via Zoom and strictly adhere to the scope that protects the information shielded by the June order.
The motion further emphasizes the competitive nature of their relationship with both NASCAR and the plaintiffs. "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." They also express a lack of confidence in the ability of a protective order to maintain the confidentiality of such information, citing existing First Amendment and common law rights of access recognized by the court.
In conclusion, the motion asserts that there remains "no compelling need in this case for HMS’s and PRS’s confidential financial and business information." It argues that any questions from the plaintiffs concerning even the confidential, anonymized average per-car data would inevitably require Penske or Hendrick to reveal additional details that could allow parties, or the media, to identify specific teams, thereby contravening the court’s previous order protecting the rights of HMS, PRS, and other non-party teams.
💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook
Author Profile
Latest entries
Nascar CupDecember 16, 2025Trackhouse Racing Unveils Strategic 2026 Driver Numbers in Heartfelt Video Announcement, Signaling New Era- Nascar CupDecember 15, 2025Motorsport Titans Roger Penske and Rick Hendrick Contest Court-Ordered Deposition in NASCAR Antitrust Litigation
- Nascar CupDecember 15, 2025Rick Ware Racing Announces Major Manufacturer Shift for 2026 NASCAR Cup Season, Forging Technical Alliance with RCR
- Nascar CupDecember 15, 2025Court Mandates Unrestricted Depositions for Motorsport Titans Penske and Hendrick in Antitrust Dispute
Jonas Leo
Ali Akbar Rosady