Penske, Hendrick Challenge Scope of Deposition in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit

Two titans of NASCAR, Roger Penske and Rick Hendrick, are actively contesting the breadth of their mandated depositions in the ongoing antitrust lawsuit filed by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against the sanctioning body. The legal maneuvering comes just days after both team owners were formally requested for testimony, a development that has now prompted a swift counter-motion seeking to significantly narrow the scope of their interrogations.

The core of the dispute, as articulated by legal representatives for Penske and Hendrick, centers on an alleged attempt by the plaintiffs to delve into highly sensitive and confidential business and financial information pertaining to their respective NASCAR Cup Series operations. The motion filed on behalf of Penske and Hendrick argues that they are being unfairly positioned to provide "expansive and unnecessary deposition testimony" stemming from a legal entanglement that, in their view, should have been resolved long before reaching this judicial stage.

The statement further elaborates on the initial understanding of their involvement. It asserts that both Hendrick and Penske, due to their long-standing relationships with NASCAR Chairman and CEO Jim France, had agreed to provide "limited testimony regarding non-confidential matters at the trial of this case." Crucially, this agreement was contingent on their testimony not forcing them to "take sides" in the lawsuit, a position both men have publicly and privately maintained they cannot and will not adopt. The current pushback suggests that the plaintiffs’ deposition requests have transcended this initial agreement, seeking information that could potentially expose proprietary financial data and other confidential business strategies of Penske Racing (PRS) and Hendrick Motorsports (HMS).

Earlier this week, Hendrick and Penske were indeed deposed. However, this occurred only after legal teams for 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports contended that NASCAR had engaged in a tactic of "sandbagging." Their claim was that NASCAR had listed Hendrick and Penske as witnesses without affording the two plaintiff teams adequate opportunity for due diligence and discovery concerning these individuals.

Related News :

Adam Ross, legal counsel representing Hendrick and Penske, clarified the circumstances leading to their agreement to testify. He stated that NASCAR, specifically through Jim France and his legal representatives, approached Hendrick and Penske only in the recent past. This approach was reportedly to solicit their testimony solely in relation to public statements they had issued, urging both parties involved in the lawsuit to pursue a settlement. Ross emphasized that neither man desires any direct involvement in the litigation and reiterated their commitment to remaining neutral. Their agreement to provide testimony, he explained, was made in deference to their decades-long association with Mr. France and was conditional on the issuance of a duly served subpoena.

The fundamental objection from Hendrick and Penske is their reluctance, and perceived inappropriateness, in discussing detailed financial records or the intricacies leading up to the 2016 charter agreement. The motion highlights a meeting that took place immediately after the plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to depose the two team owners. During this meeting, counsel for Hendrick and Penske informed the other parties that NASCAR had agreed to limit the scope of trial testimony to the content of the Declarations previously submitted by Hendrick and Penske. They proposed that if the plaintiffs adhered to this narrow scope of questioning, a compromise could be reached, allowing the depositions to proceed without objection.

However, according to the motion, the plaintiffs reportedly refused this proposed compromise. They allegedly indicated their intention to question both men extensively regarding their teams’ "highly confidential business and financial records," "private communications regarding the negotiations leading up to the initial 2016 Charter Agreement," and other similarly sensitive subjects.

In their motion, Ross also reminded the court of a prior order issued on June 25, 2025, which he contends "significantly limits" the information that non-party teams are obligated to provide. This prior order, he noted, established an agreement whereby teams would submit broad financial data, presented anonymously and without identifying information, through a third party. This approach was suggested by the non-party teams themselves to the court.

The motion underscores the court’s reasoning in that prior order: "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 current deposition requests, the motion argues, would "undermine the entirety of the Court’s decision as related to HMS and PRS." There is a significant concern that the plaintiffs’ line of questioning could allow them, or potentially the media and the general public, to "reverse engineer" the anonymized team financial data. This could lead to the identification of HMS and PRS as the sources of specific financial figures, thereby revealing information that the court had previously ordered to remain confidential and untraceable.

Adding to their objections, Hendrick and Penske also cite the timing of these depositions. With Thanksgiving approaching and the trial drawing nearer, they view the current schedule as an undue burden. Their motion requests that the depositions be permitted to occur remotely via Zoom and strictly adhere to the limited scope that upholds the protections established by the June order.

The competitive landscape of NASCAR is cited as a key reason for protecting proprietary information. The motion states, "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." Furthermore, the motion expresses a lack of confidence that a protective order would effectively maintain the confidentiality of such sensitive information, given the existing "First Amendment and common law rights of access already recognized by this Court."

The argument concludes by reiterating that there remains "no compelling need" for the confidential financial and business information of HMS and PRS in the current proceedings. Any questions directed at Mr. Hendrick or Mr. Penske concerning even the anonymized average per-car financial data, the motion contends, would inevitably require them to disclose additional information that could enable parties and the media to identify which team is associated with which financial figures. Such an outcome, the motion argues, would be inconsistent with the court’s prior order safeguarding the rights of HMS, PRS, and other non-party teams.