NASCAR: Teams request for expedited discovery denied

U.S. District Judge Frank D. Whitney has denied 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports’ motion for expedited discovery amidst their antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR.

The lawsuit challenges the 2025 charter agreement and the negotiation tactics employed by NASCAR. Decided on October 31, this outcome is a significant development in the ongoing legal battle.

In their reply to NASCAR’s response to their injunction request, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports reiterated many of their previous arguments but with a couple of new points they hope can help them land the preliminary injunction:

The teams argue that if they race as open teams, they still have to sign the NASCAR open team agreement, which includes the same clause that would release NASCAR of any claims the teams make in the lawsuit. So to even proceed fielding open, non-chartered cars, the teams would need an injunction to pursue the lawsuit.

Judge Whitney’s decision to deny the motion was based on several key arguments. The court found that the discovery requests “were not sufficiently narrowly tailored” and, as proposed, would pose an undue burden on NASCAR by demanding a significant volume of data in an unreasonably short timeframe.

The ruling states: “While the proposed discovery requests may help Plaintiffs show a likelihood of success on the merits, they are not sufficiently narrowly tailored, and Plaintiffs argue the record is sufficient to support their motion for preliminary injunction as it stands.”

Furthermore, the argument of irreparable harm-a crucial element in justifying expedited discovery-was not convincingly presented by the teams. They proposed that without this discovery, they could suffer damage that could not be repaired, ranging from financial losses to diminished standings within the motorsport community. Yet, the court was not persuaded that the harm would be imminent or unavoidable without the expedited process.

The ruling continued: “Plaintiffs seemingly misinterpret this factor. As to this factor, Plaintiffs argue that they can show a likelihood of irreparable harm — presumably in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction — without access 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.”