For the past month-plus, the 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports v. NASCAR federal antitrust lawsuit and countersuit has been undergoing the discovery phase of a lawsuit, in which both parties can request and be granted pertinent documents from the other party to use them to support their case.
The two teams have also used this time to subpoena other sports and motorsports leagues for documents pertaining to revenue sharing agreements. This includes a lawsuit filed against Formula 1 owning Liberty Media for details pertaining to the Concorde Agreement that oversees all things related to competition and financial.
NASCAR, meanwhile, has received documents and communications from the two teams that has it asking the court for the opportunity to amend its counter lawsuit against 23XI and Front Row.
Much of NASCAR’s request to the judge is redacted, as it includes confidential and proprietary information not for public consumption, but the France family owned Sanctioning Body says it is further evidence supporting its countersuit claims against the teams but also specifically 23XI co-owner Curtis Polk.
From the filing:
“Those documents indisputably confirm what NASCAR alleged in its counterclaim: 23XI, Front Row, and Curtis Polk knowingly entered into illegal agreements with other teams on issues such as fixing the compensation that they received from NASCAR and allocating how that compensation would be divided among the co-conspirator teams. These illicit agreements, as the paper trail reveals, were carried out both directly and by using Jonathan Marshall of the Race Team Alliance (“RTA”) as a conduit.”
Marshall is the executive director of the Race Team Alliance and the de facto manager for all things the teams work towards collectively.
Polk, in addition to being an investor in 23XI, is also the longtime agent and business manager for Michael Jordan, who collectively founded that team alongside veteran Cup Series driver Denny Hamlin.
NASCAR, through a filing primarily written by lead attorney Christopher Yates, say the discovery process thus far has confirmed that Polk was immediately placed in a position of negotiating authority by the RTA to secure the best charter agreement deal possible from the Sanctioning Body.
It says the RTA intended to rely on Polk’s experience co-owning an NBA franchise with Jordan, the Charlotte Hornets.
From the filing:
“In the NBA, there is a labor union representing players which allows players (and also the NBA teams acting through the league) to negotiate collectively because of the non-statutory labor exemption from the antitrust laws.
“There is no such union in NASCAR, which means that there is no non-statutory labor exemption and teams are fully subject to the antitrust laws if they reach agreements between each other.”
It has said in its countersuit that Polk attempted to orchestrate an illegal boycott of the 2023 Daytona 500 qualifying races while also tampering with NASCAR television partner negotiations.
NASCAR cited, again with redactions, conversations from emails or a 2022 RTA meeting minutes sheet examples of how it believes the teams illegally efforted to secure a stronger revenue rights agreement in its negotiations.
After the redacted section, NASCAR’s filing continues:
“Mr. Polk and the TNC then engaged in efforts to discourage other teams from engaging in individual negotiations with NASCAR; in other words, Mr. Polk was engaged in efforts to maintain the conspiracy and proposed a unified effort to attempt to extract even more from NASCAR.”
…
“Mr. Polk, Mr. Marshall, and other members of the TNC then engaged in efforts to ensure that teams remained unified as part of an effort to prevent teams from (REDACTED) and dealing directly with NASCAR.”
NASCAR claims that whatever they accused Polk of worked and that’s why no teams had signed the charter extension agreement until September, when the Sanctioning Body issued its final offer, which all but 23XI and Front Row signed.
A month later, those two teams sued NASCAR, but prior to that according to the filing:
“Polk and 23XI continued their efforts to pressure teams not to sign the 2025 Charter. Polk communicated with other teams as part of an effort to (REDACTED). Ultimately, most team owners realized that their collective efforts and agreements between teams on compensation to Charter holders and other price terms, resulted in a far more favorable Charter than teams could have achieved absent coordination and alignment. 23XI and Front Row agreed not to sign, in part because as Hamlin had explained “(REDACTED)” and as Polk had (REDACTED), (REDACTED) (REDACTED).”
NASCAR also stated that discovery is still underway and that it believes it will continue to uncover proof of an illegal effort to shake down the league for more money.
Thus, NASCAR is asking the court to be able to amend its countersuit against the teams and Polk, while also promising the court that doing so would not change Judge Kenneth D. Bell’s insistence that a trial take place on December 1.
Legal document
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
23XI, Front Row and NASCAR go to court over injunctions
Judge rules against teams preliminary injunction request
Denny Hamlin says 23XI may not race next year
What preliminary injunction denial means for lawsuit
NASCAR drops ‘lawsuit release clause’ in open agreement
Appeal timeline rebuttal filed by NASCAR
Why 23XI may not have to race in the Clash without charters
Teams drop appeal, may re-file in district court
23XI, Front Row re-file injunction request
NASCAR opposes expedited timeline
France, NASCAR motion to dismiss, deny SHR charter transfer request
NASCAR says injunctive request still fails to show irreparable harm
Teams say NASCAR went back on its word over SHR charters
23XI, Front Row respond to NASCAR’s motion to dismiss
Judge orders NASCAR to issue charters to 23XI, Front Row
NASCAR plans to appeal injunction ruling; other details
Judge grants partial stay of injunction in blunt response to NASCAR
Teams accuse NASCAR of petulance in response to delay request
Why Judge Bell did not delay his injunction order
NASCAR wants 23XI, FRM to post bond covering 2025 charter pay
Both sides meet in court to argue motion to dismiss, bond payment
Judge rules against NASCAR’s motion to dismiss, trial on schedule
Injunction appeal formally filed by NASCAR
NASCAR files counterclaim
Why NASCAR is counter-suing the teams
Denny Hamlin responds to NASCAR countersuit
23XI, Front Row file for NASCAR counterclaim dismissal
NASCAR accuses district judge of faulty legal ruling
23XI, Front Row subpoena F1 financial documents
