After a lengthy hearing last Thursday, the official judge overseeing the disputed findings in Joe Gibbs Racing v. Spire Motorsports and Chris Gabehart announced a lawsuit and counter-judgments in several cases.
David C. Keesler opined that both parties had attorneys present for their clients before they litigated for their clients;
Advertisement
“Respectfully, the Court wants the parties to resolve most of these discovery disputes on their own without intervention. The parties in this case litigate as they run – all to win. The discovery approach certainly applied in this case, and, albeit in an admirable way, likely contributed to delays and additional expenses. With that said, the Court appreciates the efforts of counsel in advocating for their clients, and sometimes settling.”
Read also:
Joe Gibbs Racing is filing a new claim against Chris Gabehart in a discovery hearing
Advertisement
Joe Gibbs Racing wants Spire, Gabehart to produce race setups
The judge ordered the following;
Joe Gibbs Racing must produce a full agreement between itself and Toyota and any binding contracts between itself and Toyota.
Gabehart wanted to find out what information Gibbs’ property was given and what Toyota it was. This is a matter of damages, because Gibbs could not claim damages from Gabehart on the information that it is Toyota and not the team.
Advertisement
The judge ordered both Spire and Joe Gibbs Racing to provide their final race setup for last season and this season, so far, against each other.
This is to allow Joe Gibbs Racing to potentially determine if Spire has replicated JGR’s goals from last season on the cars for this season.
The judge also ordered Spire to provide all competition records, materials and equipment from the Cup races Gabehart attended this season. Joe Gibbs Racing wants to know if Gabehart performed in any capacity similar to the competition director duties he performed at JGR last year, against a restraining order ordered by a judge, but also to know if Gabehart shared any information taken from his former employer.
Advertisement
Where can these sensitive items be considered? Both sides discussed the use of a clean camera that is on a secure computer in a secure room, where data can only be viewed on the screen, and not copied or printed.
The judge wants both parties to work together to make this happen.
“Based on the proposal and other information before the Court, the undersigned parties are respectfully encouraged to try in good faith to resolve any differences in their positions on the proper use of the clean room. The undersigned will refuse to force any action at this time, the parties, if necessary, a suitable motion to seek clarification.”
Advertisement
It is also the subject of five documents that Joe Gibbs Racing is trying to withhold from discovery due to attorney client privilege. The judge wants to make both parties harder to pay, which is why they should not pay.
“Apparently, there are only five (5) documents in the case and they have no attorney communication, yet four (4) documents allegedly involve legal advice from the counsel. JGR contends that he reduced the versions of two (2) documents. This final dispute certainly seems capable of being resolved by both counsel. The plaintiff is respectfully encouraged to submit the reduced versions of all five (5) documents and to the counsel to contribute in the final attempt to the final attempt. The motion to appeal the five (5) (or fewer) documents to the question.
Read also:
Advertisement
Spiegel Jeff Dickerson on Joe Gibbs Racing lawsuit: ‘Where’s the proof?’
It’s Kasey Kahne’s Friday every other week in the 2017 NASCAR season
Why isn’t Christopher Bell’s mechanical failure removed from The Chase?
Read more Motorsport.com articles on our website.