In responding to the second amended revision of the Joe Gibbs Racing lawsuit against Chris Gabehart and Spire Motorsports, both defendants re-established their defense and denials while also filing countersuits against the plaintiffs.

Joe Gibbs Racing has argued that Gabehart, who worked at the organization from 2012 to 2025 as an engineer, crew chief and competition director, misappropriated trade secrets for the benefits of his new employer, Spire.

The entire ordeal has played out in court and within legal filings over the last five months. A trial is scheduled for January. That trial will now include a pair of countersuits from the defending parties, Spire and Gabehart. 

Spire’s Counterclaim

Back in March, Spire Motorsports founding co-owner Jeff Dickerson issued a lengthy response to the litigation in the form of a declaration. One of the points he made in his filing was a point of frustration by way of a business agreement he says he made with JGR that wasn’t honored by them.

In the filing, Dickerson referenced JGR hiring longtime NASCAR Cup Series car chief Robert ‘Cheddar’ Smith in April of 2025. Smith was under contract with Spire but was released so he could join JGR to serve in that capacity with the No. 54 car and driver Ty Gibbs,– the grandson of team owner Coach Joe Gibbs.

Dickerson said he proposed a trade with JGR over what he considered a player to be named later type of agreement. He found out that JGR had already been in contact with Smith over future employment so this arrangement could have been mutually beneficial.

Dickerson said Spire targeted Tyler Allen, crew chief of the No. 54, which JGR denied a contract release. Spire also requested, if not a completed de facto personnel trade, that JGR simply pay $100,000 instead. That was not paid.

Spire has filed a countersuit against JGR for unjust enrichment. The italicized sections below are taken directly from the countersuit.

“JGR materially breached the Implied Trade Contract by failing to either (a) release a JGR employee selected by Spire from contractual restrictions so that Spire could employ that person; or (b) pay Spire $100,000, within a reasonable time.

“As a direct and proximate result of JGR’s breach, Spire has suffered damages, including the loss of the bargained-for employee or $100,000 payment and the value of the contractual and non-compete rights it surrendered.”

The unjust enrichment comes in the form of Joe Gibbs Racing employing Smith to do an identical role he held at Spire, car chief, and using information and processes acquired from his time at Spire. Spire calls this a ‘substantial benefit.’

If that sounds familiar, it’s basically what Joe Gibbs Racing says Spire has received from the hiring of Gabheart.

“JGR accepted and retained this benefit with the knowledge that Spire relinquished valuable contractual and non-compete rights in Smith for JGR’s benefit and in reliance on JGR’s commitment to release a comparable JGR employee for hiring by Spire or payment of $100,000.

“Despite receiving and retaining this benefit, JGR has failed to provide Spire with any compensation or consideration. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and inequitable for JGR to retain the benefits of Spire’s release of Smith and waiver of his non-compete, without compensating Spire for the value of those benefits. As a direct and proximate result of JGR’s unjust enrichment, Spire has suffered damages including the value of the contractual and non-compete rights it surrendered in Smith and the value of the benefit wrongfully retained by JGR.

“Spire is entitled to restitution and/or disgorgement from JGR in an amount equal to the reasonable value of the benefits JGR has unjustly obtained and retained, in an amount to be proven at trial.”

Gabehart’s counterclaim 

For his part, Gabehart is suing Joe Gibbs Racing on the basis that the team was actually the party in violation of their employment agreement.

Whereas Joe Gibbs Racing has argued, and sued, that Gabehart violated the terms of the contract by leaving before a 18-month non-compete period, the longtime engineer, crew chief and competition director states that JGR left him in a state of limbo.

Further, he alleges that JGR was slow to act on their separation agreement process, including wage withholding, as a form of leverage.

“JGR’s withholding of Mr. Gabehart’s earned wages was not a good-faith business decision—it was a calculated pressure tactic designed to coerce him into compliance with JGR’s demands during separation negotiations. Those demands far exceeded what was required under the Employment Agreement. JGR stopped payment while negotiations were ongoing and without any effective termination, using economic leverage to extract concessions from an employee who was exercising his contractual rights.

JGR acknowledged that Mr. Gabehart properly exercised his termination right under the second paragraph of Section 6 of the Agreement. JGR’s Chief Financial Officer, Tim Carmichael, conceded in a text message to Mr. Gabehart on November 8, 2025 that “I don’t believe your actual role was what Coach said it would be” or “what you were told you would have.” Mr. Carmichael further indicated he did not blame Mr. Gabehart for exercising his rights. Two days later, on November 10, 2025, Mr. Carmichael sent Mr. Gabehart an email presenting JGR’s terms for a mutual termination agreement. The terms included payment of $100,000—the exact amount owed under the second paragraph of Section 6. JGR’s counsel’s representation in open court that this amount was a “coincidence” strains credulity; the $100,000 figure directly tracks the Section 6, Paragraph 2 payment construct.”

For their part, Joe Gibbs Racing has stated that the delays in making those payments, which eventually came by January, were a result of the organization having reason to believe that Gabehart had misappropriated trade secrets for the benefit of Spire.

While the judge overseeing the case has concluded that Gabehart did misappropriate proprietary information by storing and accessing them while negotiating with Spire, JGR has also provided no evidence that the defendants have stores or used such knowledge in competition this season.

Gabehart says he only left Joe Gibbs Racing, which promoted him from crew chief of Denny Hamlin and the No. 11 car to competition director after the 2024 season, because the team then tried to pigeon hole him into taking on the duties of crew chief for then-scuffling Ty Gibbs — the grandson of the eponymous team owner.

The relationship became untenable when Gabehart concluded that the job of competition director did not come with the autonomy he was promised. In the countersuit, Gabehart also claims that the mother of Ty Gibbs, Heather Gibbs, who serves as co-owner of JGR paid him a non-employee amount to keep him focused on the No. 54 car.

“JGR’s pressure campaign to get Mr. Gabehart to serve as crew chief for the No. 54 car extended beyond verbal demands. On or about March 27, 2025, Heather Gibbs—the mother of the No. 54 driver, Ty Gibbs—wrote a personal check in the amount of $500,000 payable to Mr. Gabehart. This payment, made outside of Mr. Gabehart’s Employment Agreement with JGR and unrelated to his duties as Competition Director, was a further attempt to induce Mr. Gabehart to perform crew chief services for the No. 54 car—which went directly against what Mr. Gabehart was told when he agreed to leave the role of Crew Chief of the No. 11 car in November 2024. Mr. Gabehart left that role under the promise of being given autonomy to lead all of competition for JGR’s Cup teams. Yet this payment forced Mr. Gabehart into an untenable position: refuse and risk permanent damage to his relationship with ownership, or accept and continue trying to balance the Gibbs family’s personal desires with the company’s best competitive interests. Notably, the payment was subsequently reported on a Form 1099-NEC issued by Ty Gibbs Racing, LLC, reflecting the same $500,000 as nonemployee compensation for calendar year 2025.

“These actions demonstrate a persistent pattern of pressure by JGR and the Gibbs family to divert Mr. Gabehart from his legitimate duties as Competition Director and to coerce him into serving as crew chief for a car that was managed differently than JGR’s other entries. Rather than respecting Mr. Gabehart’s professional judgment and his contractual role, JGR sought to extract crew chief services through financial inducements and relentless pressure—conduct that materially contributed to the deterioration of the employment relationship and Mr. Gabehart’s invocation of his rights under Section 6 of the Agreement This deterioration in the relationship was the primary reason Mr. Gabehart felt compelled to exercise his rights under Section 6 of the Agreement.”

Gabehart has also claimed that JGR is in violation of numerous laws involving client attorney privileges.

When Gabehart turned over his electronic devices, Gabehart says JGR collected information that exceeded this legal matter.

“JGR’s conducting of the forensic review, though, has been marked by carelessness and disregard for Mr. Gabehart’s rights. During the course of the forensic examination, JGR’s forensic examiner, working under the supervision of JGR’s counsel, improperly disclosed dozens of Mr. Gabehart’s privileged attorney-client communications—emails between Mr. Gabehart and his counsel—directly to JGR’s counsel. This disclosure was a serious breach of the forensic protocol and a violation of Mr. Gabehart’s attorney-client privilege. As a direct result of this negligence and breach of the protocol, Mr. Gabehart has been forced to incur substantial additional attorneys’ fees in addressing and remedying this improper disclosure.”

…

“JGR, through its agents and forensic examiner, used Mr. Gabehart’s personal devices and accounts without authority—specifically, in a manner exceeding the right or permission granted under the court-ordered protocol—and with the intent to make unauthorized copies of computer data, by copying and disclosing to JGR’s counsel dozens of Mr. Gabehart’s privileged attorney-client communications that were outside the scope of the protocol’s authorization. In addition to the disclosure of privileged information, JGR, through its agents and forensic examiner, disclosed the content of files and communications outside of the scope of the protocol’s authorization.”

…

“As a direct and proximate result of JGR’s violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-458, Mr. Gabehart has been injured in his property and person, including but not limited to the costs of responding to the protocol violation, legal fees incurred in seeking suppression and remediation of improperly disclosed materials, other damages recoverable under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-539.2A, and other relief permitted by law and equity.”

As for the initial claims against Gabehart and Spire, both had strongly worded rebukes in their responses as well.

From Spire, who states once again that Gibbs hasn’t provided any proof whatsoever that proprietary data has been shared by Gabehart.

“JGR is clearly having trouble accepting Spire’s gains on the racetrack, clearly has ignored Spire’s continued upward trajectory over the past several years, and clearly regrets losing a top talent like Gabehart to Spire due to its own mismanagement. Sensing a threat to its competitive position, JGR seeks to stymie Spire’s progress, demean Spire’s success, and distract from Spire’s development by using litigation as a sword. The result is this lawsuit, in which JGR has claimed— without any basis identified to this day—that Spire engaged in a fantastic and once-in-a-generation conspiracy by unlawfully hiring Gabehart so that Spire could cheat, using confidential information and trade secrets to improve its performance on the track.

“Nothing could be further from reality. Spire’s success on the racetrack has nothing to do with JGR’s trade secrets or confidential information, and everything to do with Spire’s investment, determination, and grit. JGR knows this. Spire has never requested, reviewed, or used any of JGR’s confidential information or trade secrets, which Spire neither needs nor has any use for, as the two teams use cars produced by different manufacturers, eliminating any meaningful possibility for any impactful crossover of confidential information. JGR knows this too. In fact, since this lawsuit was first filed in February 2026, Spire has repeatedly asked JGR to identify what confidential information and/or trade secrets Spire has used to compete. But despite five months of effort, JGR has not produced or even identified any confidential information or trade secrets obtained or used by Spire.

JGR apparently believes a team with its history and resources is simply entitled to win. And if you can’t win on the merits, you can always outspend and beat the competition into submission. Spire is not having it. JGR’s calculated effort to punish an up-and-coming competitor that has disrupted the NASCAR status quo will not succeed, because Spire built its success the hard way, and its hands are clean.”

And Gabehart:

JGR’s Second Amended Complaint spins a tale of corporate espionage and betrayal. The truth is far simpler—and far less dramatic. Four months after filing this lawsuit and subjecting Mr. Gabehart to a second comprehensive forensic examination of his personal devices, cloud accounts, and digital communications, JGR still cannot point to a single piece of JGR information that Mr. Gabehart has used, transmitted, or disclosed to anyone at Spire or elsewhere in NASCAR. Not one document. Not one file. Not one text message. Nothing. Across hundreds of pages of declarations, exhibits, and briefing, JGR has failed to identify any improper sharing or use of JGR information— because there was none. JGR’s claims of trade secret theft are baseless, and its lawsuit is nothing more than a smear campaign designed to punish an employee for daring to leave. JGR’s decision to pursue this litigation is all the more striking given NASCAR’s historically fluid labor market.”

Line by line responses

Both defendants also addressed the allegations by Joe Gibbs Racing line-by-line. The key takeaways from those responses can be found below.

JGR: JGR’s exceptional results are the result of decades of technical and process driven collection of proprietary data, research, refinement, and innovation among other things. JGR’s analyses, processes, and strategies are highly specialized and technically complex.

Spire: Spire admits that JGR has had some success in NASCAR. Spire lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 12 and therefore they are deemed to be denied. Spire expressly denies that JGR’s results are solely the result of JGR’s actions.

Gabehart: Denied. Mr. Gabehart lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny JGR’s internal characterization of its purported success.

—

18. JGR: JGR reasonably relies on its employees’ strict adherence to the covenants and terms in the employment agreements and employment policies and procedures to protect its Confidential Information and Trade Secrets from unauthorized disclosure or dissemination to persons outside of the Company.

Spire: Spire denies that JGR reasonably relies on its employees’ strict adherence to the covenants and terms in the employment agreements and employment policies and procedures to protect its purported Confidential Information and Trade Secrets in all instances, including because it was prepared to permit Defendant Gabehart to begin working immediately for a competitor pursuant to certain terms in Gabehart’s employment agreement.

Gabehart: Mr. Gabehart admits that his employment agreement provides certain protections for confidential information. Mr. Gabehart expressly denies that any such terms have been violated. Except as expressly admitted herein, the allegations of Paragraph 18 are denied.

—

20. JGR: Competitor acquisition—including acquisition by third parties supporting JGR’s competitors—of JGR’s Confidential Information and Trade Secrets would allow those competitors and their partners to reap the benefits of JGR’s substantial investments without expending comparable time, effort, or capital. Possession of this information would enable competitors to improve their race teams and equipment in ways they could not achieve through independent development, thereby allowing them to unfairly compete with JGR by bypassing or accelerating the research and development process and negating the expertise JGR has built over decades of success.

Spire: Spire denies that possession of the information referenced in Paragraph 20 would

enable competitors to improve their teams in ways those competitors could not achieve through independent development and therefore also denies that possession of such information would allow a competitor to unfairly compete with JGR. Spire lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 20 and therefore denies them.

Gabehart: Paragraph 20 contains speculation and argues a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, denied. Mr. Gabehart further responds that JGR, in fact, sells and otherwise shares certain competition-related information it claims is confidential and/or a trade secret to other NASCAR teams, including 23XI Racing and Legacy Motor Club.

—

60. JGR: Following that meeting and acting upon Gabehart’s expressed intention that he preferred to leave JGR, the parties began working towards an amicable separation. To that end, JGR began preparing a generous separation agreement for Gabehart’s consideration. Gabehart had other plans.

Spire: Spire admits upon information and belief that Gabehart and Coach Gibbs agreed to meet and did meet on November 6, 2025, during which meeting Gabehart explained that his job duties at JGR were materially inconsistent with his reasonable expectations when he accepted the position of Director of Cup Series Competition and with the job description provided by JGR and Coach Gibbs prior to his start date. Coach Gibbs then indicated that JGR and Gabehart should voluntarily part ways. Except as expressly admitted, the allegations of this paragraph are denied.

Gabehart: Mr. Gabehart admits that he understood that the parties would pursue an amicable separation pursuant to Section 6 of the Agreement. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 60 are denied.

—

(Gabehart on the files discovered via forensic analysis: Mr. Gabehart denies that any of this conduct constitutes “theft” or misappropriation.)

—

75: JGR: JGR consistently and uniformly informed Gabehart that the Company would be forced to bring legal action against Gabehart if he did not respect a noncompete period, during which he would not provide services supporting another team’s competition efforts.

Spire: Spire denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 75.

Gabehart: Denied

—

81: JGR: On February 9, 2026, the Company formally terminated the Agreement for cause due to Gabehart’s misappropriation of JGR’s Confidential Information and Trade Secrets, which violated his contractual obligations, Company policy, and state and federal law, in addition to being an act involving moral turpitude, fraud, willful misconduct, gross negligence, and/or dishonesty.

Spire: Spire admits upon information and belief that on or about February 9, 2026 JGR sent Gabehart a letter purporting to terminate the Agreement for cause, which letter is a writing the contents of which speak for itself. Spire denies the allegations in Paragraph 81 to the extent they are inconsistent with that document. Spire denies that JGR properly and effectively terminated Gabehart’s employment for cause because, among other things, Gabehart had invoked the Section 6, Paragraph 2 carveout in his employment agreement with JGR and JGR ceased paying Gabehart in November 2025, effectuating a termination without cause. To the extent Paragraph 81 contains legal conclusions, no response is required. Except as expressly admitted, the allegations of this paragraph are denied.

Gabehart: Mr. Gabehart admits that JGR purported to terminate Mr. Gabehart’s employment on February 9, 2026, although in that same communication it was stated that Mr. Gabehart previously resigned. It is denied that JGR had “cause” to terminate Mr. Gabehart’s employment, and the characterizations of Mr. Gabehart’s conduct are denied.

—

83: JGR: Gabehart previously represented to JGR on December 17, 2025, that the job offer he received from Spire was for a role in which he would not provide Spire with services similar to the services he provided JGR

Gabehart: Denied

—

91. JGR: The next day, at 2:45 p.m. eastern on November 7, 2025, Gabehart accessed his JGR Computer while it was connected to JGR’s network. For fifteen consecutive minutes, he accessed JGR’s most sensitive Confidential Information and Trade Secrets and, using his personal cell phone, took at least 20 photos of his laptop screen (the “November 7 Photos”) for no legitimate business purpose on behalf of JGR. JGR subsequently discovered these photos only because they synced with Gabehart’s Microsoft OneDrive account associated with Gabehart’s JGR email address (not his Gmail address). Upon information and belief, Gabehart did not intend to return the Confidential Information and Trade Secrets he took from JGR unless and until the Company learned he took them and demanded he return them.

Gabehart: Mr. Gabehart admits that he accessed his JGR laptop on November 7, 2025, and took photographs. It is denied that this constitutes accessing “most sensitive” information or any wrongdoing. Paragraph 91 is denied to the extent this paragraph characterizes all such information as “trade secrets.” Except as expressly admitted herein, the allegations of Paragraph 91 are denied.

—

100. JGR: The pictures of JGR’s files Gabehart took on November 7, 2025, and the materials saved in the Spire Folder are the exact set of Confidential Information and Trade Secrets any of JGR’s competitors would want in order to: (a) understand JGR’s processes, technological capabilities, and payment structures that has led to JGR’s overwhelming success; (b) use them to improve their teams to obtain a competitive advantage over JGR; and (c) short-cut the decades long process it took JGR to build its place in the marketplace.

Spire: Spire denies the allegations in Paragraph 100, including the assertion that any pictures or materials allegedly taken or saved by Gabehart constitute “the exact set of Confidential Information and Trade Secrets any of JGR’s competitors would want” to gain a competitive advantage over JGR, and specifically denies that any such materials provide competitive value or benefit to Spire. Spire has never requested, reviewed, or used any JGR confidential information or trade secrets, including the materials referenced in Paragraph 100. Spire is a Chevrolet team with its own technical alliances with Hendrick Motorsports and General Motors, and thus has no need for JGR’s information because Spire uses Hendrick-built engines and GM aerodynamic and simulation tools, whereas JGR is aligned with Toyota; the outerbody and underbody work together, such that information from JGR would not be an easy carry over for performance, and any JGR data would be almost impossible to use and could actually harm Spire given Spire’s inability to validate outside information. Spire lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 100 and therefore they are deemed to be denied.

Gabehart: Denied

—

109. JGR: On December 4, 2025, Gabehart spoke to JGR’s President and falsely stated he had not spoken to any individuals associated with Spire about employment or any other potential employers about job opportunities.

Gabehart: Denied

—

111. JGR: Upon information and belief, after November 10, 2025, Gabehart accessed JGR’s Confidential Information and Trade Secrets for the purpose of obtaining a job with Spire, to disclose JGR’s Confidential Information and Trade Secrets to Spire, and/or to use them for Spire’s benefit or his own benefit in enticing Spire to offer him a job.

Spire: Spire denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 111

Gabehart: Denied

—

113-118. Upon information and belief, Gabehart’s use and disclosure of JGR’s Confidential Information and Trade Secrets gives Spire an unfair competitive advantage over JGR. Upon information and belief, Gabehart’s disclosure and/or use of Confidential Information and Trade Secrets was also a knowing and deliberate act intended to maliciously damage JGR. JGR did not consent to Gabehart’s retention, disclosure, or use of Confidential Information and Trade Secrets. Since Gabehart ceased providing services to JGR on November 10, 2025, Gabehart informed multiple JGR employees and personnel including one of its drivers that he no longer worked for JGR and was going to join Spire. Upon information and belief, Spire allowed Gabehart to enter its race shop during December 2025 and January 2026 while Spire was preparing for the 2026 NASCAR season and after Spire knew of Gabehart’s noncompete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions under the Agreement. Upon information and belief, Jeff Dickerson has informed other individuals that he possesses portions of JGR’s Confidential Information and Trade Secrets Gabehart took from JGR.

Spire: Spire denies the allegations contained in Paragraph(s) 113-(118)

Gabehart: Denied

—

121 JGR: Upon information and belief, Gabehart used JGR’s Confidential Information and Trade Secrets he stole from JGR concerning the compensation JGR paid its employees for the purpose of soliciting and recruiting JGR employee[s] to depart the Company’s employ and begin working for Spire.

Spire: Spire denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 121.

Gabehart: Denied

—

125. JGR: Spire is aware of the Agreement and has been aware of it since no later than December 3, 2025 when Eric Schaffer called Bill Anthony and expressly informed him that Gabehart was subject to noncompete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions preventing him from providing the same or similar services to Spire to those he provided JGR in the prior year. Spire has undoubtedly been aware of the Agreement and its terms since no later than February 19, 2026, when JGR filed this action.

Spire: Spire admits it was aware that Gabehart had an Employment Agreement with JGR since no later than December 3, 2025, but denies any awareness of the specific provisions of that Employment Agreement, or JGR’s interpretation of them, at that time. Spire further denies that Eric Shaffer informed Bill Anthony that Gabehart was subject to a noncompete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions during the phone call referenced in Paragraph 125. Spire similarly admits it was generally aware of the employment agreement between JGR and Gabehart no later than February 19, 2026, but denies specific knowledge of its terms at that time, and denies any implication of misconduct related thereto.

JGR: Mr. Gabehart admits that JGR filed this action on February 19, 2026, and that Exhibit 1 to JGR’s original complaint contained an unredacted copy of Mr. Gabehart’s employment agreement with JGR. Except as expressly admitted herein, the allegations of Paragraph 125 are denied.

—

JGR 126-127: Knowing the Agreement contained noncompete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions preventing Gabehart from, among other things, providing Spire with the same or similar services he provided JGR within the last year, Spire created a bespoke role for Gabehart which required him to perform the same or similar services he provided JGR in the prior year. Spire hired him to that role and has continuously induced Gabehart to violate his noncompete and confidentiality obligations by permitting and/or requiring him to perform the same or similar services he provided JGR in the prior year at at least the March 22, 2026 Goodyear 400 and the April 12, 2026 Food City 500, including during Spire’s preperation for those races in the days leading up to each race. Spire hired Gabehart so Gabehart could provide it with the same services he provided JGR in the prior year. Spire’s sole motive in creating the specific role it created for Gabehart was deception. In particular, Spire created a role that gives the appearance of Gabehart providing significant services for non-NASCAR Cup Series competition, when that was not Spire’s intent for his services, nor on information and belief what he is doing. The deceptive title was created solely to attempt to give a plausible explanation for Gabehart to be present at NASCAR Cup Series events at times and in places where he can violate his restrictive covenant by advising on competition in a way that is very difficult for an outsider to detect or prove. There is no legal justification for this deceptive conduct.

Spire: Spire denies the allegations.

Gabehart: Denied

—

129. JGR: A Spire employee has informed a JGR employee that Gabehart is in charge of and/or significantly participating in Spire’s competition strategy and decisions. Employees were instructed not to discuss the fact Gabehart is leading and/or participating in Spire’s competition and strategy decision-making process outside of Spire. There is no legal justification for advising its employees to conceal the true nature of Gabehart’s services. Spire is aware that Gabehart leading and/or participating in Spire’s competition strategy and decision-making violates his noncompete obligations setforth in the Agreement.

Spire: Spire lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that a Spire employee informed a JGR employee that Gabehart is in charge of and/or significantly participating in Spire’s competition strategy and decisions, and that allegation is therefore deemed denied. Spire denies that Gabehart is leading and/or participating in Spire’s competition and strategy decision making process, denies that employees were instructed not to discuss the same, and denies that any role Gabehart performs for Spire violates his noncompete obligations as set forth in the Agreement. Paragraph 129 also calls for a legal conclusion, to which no response is required; however, to the extent a response is required, those allegations are deemed denied. Spire denies any allegations contained in Paragraph 129 not expressly admitted herein.

Gabehart: Mr. Gabehart lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to what an unnamed Spire employee may have stated to an unnamed JGR employee. Paragraph 129 is denied to the extent this paragraph alleges any violation by Mr. Gabehart of his obligations under the preliminary injunction currently in effect (ECF 78). Further, Paragraph 129 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Except as expressly admitted herein, the allegations of Paragraph 129 are denied.

—

130. JGR: Upon information and belief, Spire employees who support competition efforts work with Gabehart on competition strategy and decisions. Spire is aware that Gabehart leading Spire’s competition strategy and decisions-making violates his noncompete obligations set forth in the Agreement.

Spire: Spire denies the allegations in Paragraph 130.

Gabehart: Denied

—

132. JGR: Despite the restrictive covenants in the Agreement and Gabehart’s misappropriation of trade secrets, Spire has hired Gabehart. Spire’s hiring of Gabehart and the competitive information he has used and improperly retained will give Spire a competitive advantage in the marketplace. It is a short cut to replicate JGR’s Confidential Information and Trade Secrets that have been the lynchpin of its success. Spire hired Gabehart to a role requiring him to perform the same or similar services to those he performed for JGR in the prior year with knowledge that Gabehart was bound by his agreement not to perform those services for Spire. Spire’s decision to hire Gabehart to a role that violated the Agreement’s noncompete provision was done intentionally to violate that agreement and to use JGR’s Confidential Information and Trade Secrets for Spire’s benefit.

Spire: Spire admits it hired Gabehart as its Chief Motorsports Officer, but denies that any restrictive covenants apply to his employment with JGR and denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 132. Spire specifically denies that it acquired or used JGR’s trade secrets, denies that it obtained any competitive advantage from JGR information, denies that the Chief Motorsports Officer role requires Gabehart to perform the same or similar services as those he performed for JGR in the year prior, and denies that Spire’s hiring of Gabehart was done to violate Gabehart’s employment agreement with JGR and in order to use JGR’s confidential information and trade secrets for Spire’s benefit.

Gabehart: Admitted that Spire hired Mr. Gabehart on February 16, 2026. Except as expressly admitted herein, the allegations of Paragraph 132 are denied.

—

136. JGR: Spire’s decision to create a bespoke and intentionally misleading title and role for Gabehart and hire him to that role was not motivated by a desire to further its competitive interests fairly. Rather, Spire decision to employ Gabehart was motivated by a desire to compete unfairly against JGR and to intentionally harm JGR’s competitive interests through unlawful means.

Spire: Paragraph 136 calls for a legal conclusion, to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, Spire denies the allegations in Paragraph 136. Spire specifically denies that it created an intentionally misleading title and role for Gabehart.

Gabehart: Denied

—

151. JGR: As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ misappropriation of JGR’s trade secrets, JGR has suffered damages, including the diminution in value of its trade secrets. JGR will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless and until Defendants are restrained from using or disclosing JGR’s trade secrets and returns all JGR trade secrets in their possession, custody, or control to JGR.

Spire: Spire denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 151.

Gabehart: Denied.

—

160. JGR: Defendants also misappropriated JGR’s trade secrets when, upon information and belief, Gabehart used and relied upon the trade secrets to perform work for or serve the interests of Spire and/or other third parties without JGR’s consent.

Spire: Denied as to Spire. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 160 pertain to Gabehart, no response is required. To the extent any further response is required, Spire lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 160, and therefore they are deemed to be denied.

Gabehart: Denied.

—

161. JGR: Defendants further misappropriated JGR’s trade secrets when, upon information and belief, Gabehart used and relied upon the trade secrets to make himself more valuable to Spire or other third parties in attempting to obtain employment from Spire and/or other third parties.

Spire: Denied as to Spire. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 161 pertain to Gabehart, no response is required. To the extent any further response is required, Spire lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 161, and therefore they are deemed to be denied.

Gabehart: Denied

—

181. JGR: Spire knowingly, intentionally, unjustifiably, and in bad faith induced Gabehart to breach his contract with JGR by (1) soliciting and hiring him to work for Spire, (2) requesting, encouraging, or otherwise inducing him to disclose or use Plaintiff’s trade secrets or confidential information, (3) allowing him to perform the same or similar services he provided JGR in the prior year to Spire and while using JGR’s Confidential Information and Trade Secrets, and on information belief, actively encouraging and inducing him to do so and (4) creating a role specifically designed to allow Gabehart to breach his noncompete obligations in a manner that makes it more difficult to detect the breach of his noncompete obligations.

Spire: Spire denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 181.

Gabehart: This claim is not directed at Mr. Gabehart and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, denied.

We want your opinion!

– The Motorsport.com Team