FOLLOW US

Case Intel — What Matters Now

• Drake asks a federal judge to force Universal Music Group to search CEO Sir Lucian Grainge’s files in his defamation suit over “Not Like Us.”
• UMG calls the case “baseless,” says lyrics are protected expression, and has moved to dismiss the suit.
• A judge has already green-lit key discovery steps for Drake, signaling the case is moving forward.

By Samuel Lopez – USA Herald

A new flashpoint in Drake’s defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) arrived today, as the rapper presses a New York federal court to compel searches of CEO/chairman Sir Lucian Grainge’s custodial files—evidence Drake says could reveal whether UMG’s top executive knowingly advanced falsehoods embedded in Kendrick Lamar’s smash diss track “Not Like Us.”

The filing, obtained by USA Herald, underscores why this moment matters: the “actual malice” standard Drake must meet as a public figure often turns on who knew what, and when. If Grainge’s messages show awareness of falsity—or reckless disregard—the case could clear a critical legal hurdle. (Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, public figures must prove “actual malice,” i.e., knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard.) Legal Information Institute

Background: From diss track to courtroom

Drake sued UMG in January 2025, alleging the label “published, promoted, exploited and monetized” a narrative portraying him as a sexual predator through “Not Like Us,” and later amended the complaint to add Lamar’s Super Bowl and Grammys exposure as compounding events. UMG rejects the claims and is seeking dismissal.

In April, the court allowed discovery to proceed, including document demands such as Lamar’s record deal—despite UMG’s request to pause discovery pending dismissal. That same ruling set the stage for today’s tug-of-war over what the label must turn over.

What Drake is asking the judge to order

Drake’s latest letter motion seeks to force UMG to collect, review, and produce Lucian Grainge’s responsive documents, arguing the CEO had a “direct part” in the internal approval and promotion pipeline around “Not Like Us.” The motion also proposes search terms to minimize burden.

A federal docket listing reflects a letter motion to compel production of Grainge’s custodial materials in the case. Court Listener

Drake’s lawyers say Grainge’s communications are probative of actual malice—the idea that UMG leadership allegedly knew the most inflammatory claims were false but pushed them anyway. (In U.S. defamation law, “actual malice” requires proof the defendant knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard.) Legal Information Institute