Teams Challenge Hendrick's Testimony as NASCAR Antitrust Trial Nears

In a significant development in the ongoing antitrust lawsuit filed by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR, legal teams for the two racing organizations have filed a motion with the court seeking to exclude Rick Hendrick, chairman of Hendrick Automotive Group and a dominant figure in NASCAR, from testifying as a witness for the sanctioning body. The motion stems from a scheduling conflict that has prevented Mr. Hendrick from providing his deposition, a crucial pre-trial discovery process, as mandated by a previous court order.

The controversy ignited after Judge Kenneth D. Bell ordered both Rick Hendrick and Roger Penske, influential team owners and business magnates, to submit to oral depositions by 23XI and Front Row. This ruling came after NASCAR, at the behest of chairman Jim France (also a defendant in the suit), attempted to designate Hendrick and Penske as trial witnesses late in the discovery process, a move the plaintiffs characterized as "sandbagging."

According to court documents filed by 23XI and Front Row, Mr. Hendrick’s deposition was initially scheduled for November 18, 2025, at Hendrick Automotive Group’s offices in Charlotte. However, citing undisclosed reasons, Mr. Hendrick’s counsel informed the plaintiffs that he would not be available on that date and, critically, not on any other day prior to the trial’s commencement on December 1, 2025. Hendrick’s legal team subsequently offered to make him available for deposition during the first week of the trial.

This proposed alternative has been met with strong objection from 23XI and Front Row. Their motion argues that deposing Mr. Hendrick during the trial would be "prejudicial" to their case. The plaintiffs’ counsel contends that by the time the trial begins, their trial strategy, including the planned timing of witness testimonies, will be fully established. Having to accommodate a deposition during this critical period would necessitate diverting attention and resources away from the trial itself, thereby compromising their focus and potentially hindering their presentation of evidence. The motion further asserts that NASCAR’s "late disclosure" of Mr. Hendrick as a witness is the root cause of these scheduling constraints, making any resulting prejudice to the plaintiffs "unjustified and unfair."

Related News :

NASCAR, in its response to the motion, has pushed back against the plaintiffs’ claims of prejudice and inflexibility. The sanctioning body argues that Mr. Hendrick’s testimony is integral to their case, which is anticipated to begin the week of December 8, 2025, a week after the trial officially commences. NASCAR has proposed that Mr. Hendrick could be called later in their case-in-chief, providing ample opportunity for the plaintiffs to conduct the deposition. They highlight that even after the December 1 trial start, there are non-trial days on December 6 and 7, which could be utilized.

Furthermore, NASCAR contends that the plaintiffs have a sufficient legal team to manage a short, 2.5-hour deposition, even if it occurs during trial. The response points out that at least 15 attorneys have participated in depositions on behalf of the plaintiffs, with at least seven actively taking testimony. The presence of at least five law firm partners representing the plaintiffs suggests a robust legal presence capable of handling such a task. NASCAR cites legal precedent, such as Kunzman v. Enron Corp., to support the assertion that courts can order witnesses to be available for deposition in advance of their testimony, even if it means taking place during trial.

NASCAR also disputes the characterization of Mr. Hendrick as inflexible. According to their filing, 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 response further states that numerous options, including a virtual deposition, were offered by Mr. Hendrick’s counsel to accommodate the plaintiffs, but these were allegedly refused in favor of an "insisted on the take-it-or-leave-it Tuesday, November 18 deposition."

Adding another layer to the legal maneuvering, NASCAR accuses the plaintiffs of hypocrisy, citing their own recent actions. The sanctioning body points to a trial subpoena served by 23XI and Front Row on an accountant from the firm GreerWalker LLP, an individual who was not listed on any witness list or included in the plaintiffs’ initial disclosures. NASCAR describes this subpoena as a "sandbagged" maneuver, mirroring the very accusation they face from the plaintiffs.

The core of the antitrust lawsuit revolves around allegations that NASCAR has engaged in monopolistic practices, stifling competition and unfairly disadvantaging independent team owners. 23XI Racing, co-owned by NBA legend Michael Jordan and NASCAR driver Denny Hamlin, and Front Row Motorsports, owned by Bob Jenkins, have been vocal critics of NASCAR’s business model, particularly its revenue-sharing agreements and its control over the sport’s intellectual property and broadcasting rights. The teams argue that these practices limit their ability to generate revenue and compete effectively against teams with closer ties to NASCAR’s corporate structure.

The inclusion of figures like Rick Hendrick, whose empire encompasses not only the most successful NASCAR Cup Series team but also a vast automotive retail network, and Roger Penske, a renowned figure in motorsports with significant business interests, underscores the high stakes of this litigation. Their potential testimony could shed light on the inner workings of the sport, team economics, and the competitive landscape. The dispute over Mr. Hendrick’s deposition highlights the intense legal strategies and tactical battles unfolding as the trial date approaches.

In a crucial update to the proceedings, Judge Kenneth D. Bell has issued an order directly addressing the deposition scheduling. The court will not compel the plaintiffs to depose Mr. Hendrick after the trial has begun but has not excluded his testimony at this juncture. Instead, Judge Bell is directing all parties involved, including Mr. Hendrick and his legal counsel, to "work cooperatively to find a time prior to trial for a 2.5-hour deposition." The order explicitly states, "So Ordered." This judicial intervention aims to resolve the scheduling impasse and ensure that Mr. Hendrick’s testimony can be obtained before the trial commences, preventing further procedural delays and potential prejudice. The next steps will involve intensive negotiation between the legal teams to secure a mutually agreeable deposition date and time within the court’s directive.

💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook

Author Profile

rifan muazin

Latest entries

Nascar CupDecember 22, 2025Teams Challenge Hendrick’s Testimony as NASCAR Antitrust Trial Nears
Nascar CupDecember 22, 2025NASCAR Unveils Comprehensive Rulebook Adjustments, Paving the Way for New Manufacturers and Enhanced Competition
Nascar CupDecember 22, 2025JR Motorsports Confirms 2026 Daytona 500 Bid with Reigning Xfinity Champion Justin Allgaier
Nascar CupDecember 22, 2025Denny Hamlin Commits to NASCAR Cup Series Through 2026, Reflects on Phoenix Heartbreak and Future

Or check our Popular Categories...

Or check our Popular Categories...