TEXT-ONLY ORDER Before the Court sua sponte, subject to its direction and inherent authority, the Court enters the following Order: During a Teleconference Motions Hearing on May 5, 2026, the Court admonished the parties to review this Courts local rules, directing them to carefully review LCvR 7.1 specifically and follow its requirements. (Doc. No. 88 at 56-57). This instruction was given in part after Plaintiff Joe Gibbs Racing, LLCs filed a Supplemental Memorandum (Doc. No. 71) pursuant to LCvR 7.1(j), which Defendants opposed (Doc. Nos. 73, 75) and the Court cautioned the parties about their attempts to circumvent filing a surreply without leave of Court and inappropriately labeling it as a notice of supplemental authority. (See Doc. No. 88 at 57). Nonetheless, between October 19, 2026, and October 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed three more separate Notices of Supplemental Evidence with accompanying exhibits that span no less than 175 pages, again relying on LCvR 7.1(j), and again without leave of Court. (Doc. Nos. 328, 342, 346). The Court has already issued a warning that the parties should not file surreplies without leave of Court and must follow the requirements of the local rules, including LCvR 7.1(j) which governs citation of supplemental authorities, not evidence. (See Doc. No. 88 at 57). Because the Court believes it is best to adjudicate matters on the merits, the Court will consider Plaintiffs Notices of Supplemental Evidence, along with any responses by Defendants, for the purposes of its ruling on 219 Plaintiffs Motion for Order to Show Cause and 231 Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction. However, no further responses and supplements will be accepted absent leave of Court. Further, the Court is troubled that Plaintiff ignored its express prior instructions and disregarded this Courts rules and instructions. Such future conduct may result in a show cause or sanctions, as appropriate. Additionally, going forward, the Court will summarily strike any new purported notices that do not comply with the Courts instructions and local rules, except that Defendants shall be permitted to file any responses to Doc. Nos. 328, 342, and 346. The Court notes that Defendant Gabehart has already responded, but is granted leave to address the substance of notices and exhibits. (See Doc. No. 338). Defendant Spire is also granted leave to respond. Such responses shall be limited to 5 pages, excluding exhibits, and must be filed no later than 5:00 pm on October 27, 2026. No replies will be permitted. The Court does, however, recognize and appreciate that the parties worked together on the submission of in camera documents, as previously directed by this Court. (See Doc. Nos. 343, 352). So Ordered. Entered by District Judge Susan C Rodriguez on 10/23/2026.

And Spire’s response. Why would Spire respond to a motion seeking sanctions against just Gabehart? Concern that if JGR gets what it is asking for (an adverse inference instruction), a jury could mistakenly extend that beyond Gabehart to Spire. storage.courtlistener.com/re…