30 seconds in my brain:
I love that Detroit is giving Verlander a wonderful goodbye. The end of baseball season always makes me think of “For the Love of the Game”. I love that movie. Why don’t more people love that movie? Didn’t Billy Chapel play for the Detroit Tigers in that movie? He did. Except that character played his entire career in Detroit. Whoa, that movie came out 27 years ago? I am old.
4
15
1,509
Eric has definitely shined this year, particularly his coverage of the truck race at Charlotte immediately after Kyle Busch’s passing and his super substitute status for Dirty Mo Media podcasts.
Latest #PeopleWhoRace profile for @NASCAR: Coming from humble beginnings in short track racing @Ebrennan45 has emerged as a fan favorite voice in the booth & tonight he will call the @ARCA_Racing Championship race for @NASCARONFOX.
substack.com/@kaitlynvincie/…
2
31
2,191
Sidenote, I think that HMS’s filings point to a reasonable middle ground on these particular discovery disputes - granting JGR’s motions to compel, but with a protective order in place to ensure that HMS and Spire confidential information is not disclosed beyond the scope of those who need to know (ie attorneys and experts) for litigation purposes only.
And here are the links to what HMS filed today: storage.courtlistener.com/re… and storage.courtlistener.com/re…. Quick summary – HMS confirms the value of confidential technical information within NASCAR and believes that granting JGR’s motion to compel could put its confidential technical information at risk. HMS wants the ability to seek a protective order if JGR’s motion is granted as it relates limiting the disclosure of any of its confidential information that Spire has.
2
14
2,463
And here are the links to what HMS filed today: storage.courtlistener.com/re… and storage.courtlistener.com/re…. Quick summary – HMS confirms the value of confidential technical information within NASCAR and believes that granting JGR’s motion to compel could put its confidential technical information at risk. HMS wants the ability to seek a protective order if JGR’s motion is granted as it relates limiting the disclosure of any of its confidential information that Spire has.
Judge Keesler’s (the magistrate judge handling discovery issues in JGR v Gabehart & Spire) order addressing HMS’s notice identifying that it has an interest in the outcome of a discovery dispute between JGR and Spire given that Spire has access to HMS confidential information by way of the HMS/Spire alliance.
The TDLR summary of the order - HMS, your notice isn’t how you properly do this and you should have stepped up earlier, but I’ll give you the chance to file formal responses and will consider letting your attorney make arguments at the upcoming hearing if you follow the proper process for making that request and I decide to let you.
7
1
27
6,637
In other JGR v Gabehart & Spire news, late yesterday morning the defendants filed motions for default for not filing an Answer to counterclaims 14 days after JGR’s motions to dismiss counterclaims were (mostly) denied. (storage.courtlistener.com/re… and storage.courtlistener.com/re…) JGR filed its Answers and a motion for leave to allow for them to be submitted late within a few hours. (storage.courtlistener.com/re…) Default is a harsh penalty that is disfavored by federal courts so I suspect that JGR’s motion will be granted. Regardless, just another thing that is going to make the September bills for all of the parties even higher.
1
2
12
1,585
Judge Keesler’s (the magistrate judge handling discovery issues in JGR v Gabehart & Spire) order addressing HMS’s notice identifying that it has an interest in the outcome of a discovery dispute between JGR and Spire given that Spire has access to HMS confidential information by way of the HMS/Spire alliance.
The TDLR summary of the order - HMS, your notice isn’t how you properly do this and you should have stepped up earlier, but I’ll give you the chance to file formal responses and will consider letting your attorney make arguments at the upcoming hearing if you follow the proper process for making that request and I decide to let you.
5
4
41
9,113
Shannon Hansen retweeted
We might’ve just booked Tony to be on DBC next week as well. 😏
Actually, yeah we did book him.
You read that right. 💯💨
🚨 @TonyStewart is BACK in our No. 25 Ram 1500 for @TALLADEGA! 🚨
More details on Tony's second start in one of our @RamTrucks: brnw.ch/21x5W1h
13
37
762
57,440
The Western District of North Carolina is apparently never going to be free of racing related litigation at this rate.
With the latest filing in Team Conti LLC v. Kenneth Biron, it appears the case is being moved to FEDERAL COURT. I'm sure our Founding Fathers were well prepared for our federal judiciary to handle this most reverent and awesome responsibility on adjudicating setup shop beef.
3
1
34
4,619
Just saw this on the JRG v. Gabehart & Spire docket. Why is HMS having an attorney appear on its behalf in this litigation? My guess is that this is related to the discovery disputes regarding Spire’s alleged non-production of technical information given the HMS/JGR technical alliance.
5
2
59
7,146
As he has consistently done throughout this litigation, Matt pulls direct quotes from the filings and he does a nice job explaining what is going on in plain English. And my guess as to why HMS attorneys filed a notice of appearance is correct. HMS is concerned about the production of HMS/Spire technical alliance information to JGR and now has until Friday to formally identify what HMS is objecting to JGR getting from Spire and why HMS believes that the information should not be provided to JGR.
Spire and Joe Gibbs Racing continue to disagree over what items should be produced in discovery
Spire listed an example of some things JGR wants
Hendrick Motorsports enters the court to protect its interests
motorsport.com/nascar-cup/ne…
2
5
46
9,121
And now a hearing date has been set for the various discovery disputes mentioned below.
JGR v Gabehart & Spire update - there has been some adjustment to upcoming deadlines, but none that impact the trial date of February 1. The changes are related to completing specific aspects of discovery and in turn pushing out deadlines associated with expert reports/expert discovery. A lot of material related to ongoing discovery disputes has been filed under seal, but the pending discovery motions mentioned in the order are motions to compel among the parties and by Toyota Racing Development.
1
4
2,059
Something to keep in mind is this list is what Spire is arguing JGR’s trade secrets are. It benefits Spire for the JGR trade secrets to be as small of a list as possible and it benefits JGR for its trade secrets to be as big of a list as possible. Ultimately, the court will decide what falls under the umbrella of JGR trade secrets. If I am tracking things correctly, this is related to a pending discovery motion where JGR is alleging that Spire is refusing to produce technical information that JGR is seeking in order to see if Spire has its trade secrets and if Spire incorporated JGR trade secrets into its practices after it hired Gabehart. Spire also has a pending discovery motion asserting that TRD is refusing to fully respond to a subpoena as it relates to the production of technical information. Those motions were set for hearing on September 30, but have now been pushed back by one day to October 1.
In filing, Spire's description of what JGR is considering trade secrets at issue in lawsuit:
-spreadsheet created by Gabehart to track race outcomes
-Processes for sealing airboxes/ductwork
-Processes for vacuum testing underbodies
-transaxle lubrication specs/procedures
-setups
3
1
35
14,988
And JGR did in fact renew its motion for a preliminary injunction against Spire. The prior motion for a preliminary injunction against Spire was denied without prejudice, which meant that it could be pursuit again at any time. Here is the new motion: storage.courtlistener.com/re…
And now turning to the contempt motion alleging that Gabehart has been violating first the temporary restraining order, and then the preliminary injunction enforcing his noncompete during litigation. While JGR is seeking that actions be taken against both Gabehart and Spire, the TRO & PI only applied to Gabehart. JGR will likely be told that they can only get relief against Gabehart and that they will need to file a separate motion seeking and injunction against Spire (again). Here is the link to the main document: storage.courtlistener.com/re…
1
6
7,652
And here is the memorandum that goes into detail about the legal argument JGR is making along with what specific evidence it is relying on for this motion. I will post the Spire response and supporting memorandum when it is filed as as well as the JGR reply that will finish off the briefing cycle for this motion before the mid-October hearing. storage.courtlistener.com/re…
1
3
474
Here is the list of exhibits supporting JGR’s renewed motion for a preliminary injunction against Spire. Like with the motion for contempt for violating the existing orders enforcing Gabehart’s noncompete, the evidence that JGR is relying upon to support its motion is deposition testimony from Spire and its employees (to include Gabehart) along with both defendants’ discovery responses and documents produced in response to discovery requests.
And JGR did in fact renew its motion for a preliminary injunction against Spire. The prior motion for a preliminary injunction against Spire was denied without prejudice, which meant that it could be pursuit again at any time. Here is the new motion: storage.courtlistener.com/re…
1
1
19
6,153
This motion is not a surprise given North Carolina prohibits recovery on negligence claims on behalf of any party who is even 1% at fault. The NTSB preliminary report (that among other things identified that the Duttons lacked the necessary qualifications to fly the plane) will definitely be important evidence related to this motion.
In other legal news, in an expected move/response in the Biffle plane crash litigation, the Greg Biffle estate filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the pilots' (the Duttons) estate. The Biffle estate claims the Duttons were negligent in how they operated the aircraft.
21
4,954