Federal Judge Frank D. Whitney of the Western District of North Carolina has denied the expedited discovery request made by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports in advance of the hearing on Monday that will determine whether the two teams suing NASCAR can retains its charters throughout the duration of the legal process.
The teams requested documents concerning both the 2016 and 2025 charter agreements, race track sanctioning agreements and the acquisition of both International Speedway Corporation and the ARCA Racing Series from six key NASCAR executives.
In an earlier filing, the teams made the following argument:
“Here, with one exception, each discovery request seeks a limited set of documents from six identified custodians relating to specific time periods. The lone exception is Request 1, which seeks NASCAR’s sanctioning agreements with racetracks since 2016. But this request is not burdensome as it seeks clearly defined contracts from NASCAR’s central files.
“The other requests each relate to an individual exclusionary act, which took place at specific moments and only requires review of the files of six custodians. For example, Requests 2 and 3 seek documents ‘discussing’ the ‘competitive purpose or effect’ of NASCAR’s purchases of International Speedway Corporation in 2019 and Automobile Racing Club of America in 2018, respectively. Similarly, Requests 4–8 seek targeted documents ‘discussing’ the ‘competitive purpose or effect’ of specific provisions in the 2025 Charter Agreements. Defendants have failed to present any showing that this production would impose an undue burden. seeks injunctive relief because of the expedited nature of injunctive proceedings.”
The judge, however, determined that the documents sought were overly broad and stated that teams stated conviction they could win the preliminary injunction hearing without them … especially just days before the hearing.
“Although Plaintiffs (23XI and Front Row) assert that their proposed discovery requests are ‘narrowly tailored’ and would pose only a ‘minimal burden to Defendants,’ based on the Court’s review of the parties arguments and exhibits, this is not the case.
“At least six of Plaintiffs eight proposed requests for production pertain to Defendants’ alleged anticompetitive conduct which goes to the crux of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. Moreover, the scope of the requests for production is also overly broad. Plaintiffs seek discovery responses Spanning eight years based on ‘a search of Defendant’s corporate files and the electronic files of six NASCAR executives.
“Thus, while the proposed discovery requests may help Plaintiffs show a likelihood of success on the merits, they are not sufficiently narrowly tailored …”
And also …
“Plaintiffs argue the record is sufficient to support their motion for preliminary injunction as it stands. More critically, though, Plaintiffs seek all of this information within five days of a Court order granting their motion for expedited discovery, a timeframe that would put a significant burden on Defendants
“Accordingly, this factor weighs heavily against granting the motion to expedited discovery but seek expedited discovery to create a more fulsome record. In doing so, Plaintiffs concede that they do not actually require expedited discovery, at least for the purposes of their motion for a preliminary injunction.
“Plaintiffs do not address the potential irreparable harm caused by the risk of loss of evidence if this Court does not permit expedited discovery. Defendants state in their response that they ‘have implemented a litigation hold that preserves relevant materials, including those requested by Plaintiffs.’ Accordingly, this consideration also weighs against granting Plaintiffs’ motion.
“Because Plaintiff have not shown that they would be irreparably harmed by waiting until after the parties` conduct their Rule 26(f) conference to obtain the requested discovery, this factor weighs against granting Plaintiffs` motion.”
The hearing is set for Monday and the judge will ultimately determine whether 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports retain its charters while the legal process plays out. NASCAR has stated its intent to proceed into 2025 with just 32 charters, which includes the two charters 23XI Racing and Front Row have acquired in principle, but have yet to request from NASCAR having those transactions approved.
Simplify it
23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports wanted access to private NASCAR documents to help prove its assertion that running as open teams next year would generate incalculable damage to their business and standing within the industry.
NASCAR has argued back that the damage is easily calculated based on the loss of revenue to not compete with a charter and could be rewarded to the teams should they win a decision against the Sanctioning Body.
NASCAR agued that it was not given enough time to prepare the documents and the teams said they have had nearly two months. It also claimed that the teams should not be allowed charter access when they chose not to sign the documents in September in the first place. NASCAR says the two teams stated an intent to race without charters next season and should be held to that.
The teams also argued that the eight documents from six NASCAR executives was narrow in scope and easy to produce.
The court ultimately decided the scope was too broad and there was too little time for both parties to prepare accordingly with the hearing set for Monday.
Both sides will make their arguments in court on Monday and the judge will determine if 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports will be included in the charter system next season. A decision could come as soon as that day.
This is all part of a process that must be sorted out before the lawsuit proper can proceed.
Lawsuit timeline
23XI Racing, Front Row decline to sign NASCAR’s final 2025-2031 charter document
Why 23XI, Front Row filed a lawsuit against NASCAR
23XI, Front Row makes his case in antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR
Richard Childress says he had ‘no choice’ but to sign charter document
How drivers feel about the lawsuit
Michael Jordan comments on his team’s lawsuit against NASCAR
Meet NASCAR’s antitrust defense lawyer
NASCAR files injunction to be included in charter system through lawsuit
NASCAR motions against team’s preliminary injunction request
NASCAR, teams consent to redacting charter details in filings
Teams make case for injunctive relief, expedited discovery
NASCAR’s lengthy rebuttal to injunction, lawsuit
Teams respond to NASCAR response over injunction
Judge denies expedited discovery before injunction hearing