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

Why Grainge’s files matter to Drake

Drake’s filing characterizes Grainge as a decision-maker whose sign-offs and internal messaging could show what UMG understood about the song’s accusations and the risks of amplifying them. The submission stresses that even overlapping or duplicative documents are necessary to establish what the CEO knew, and when.

UMG at first pointed to the “apex” executive doctrine—a judge-made rule shielding top executives from intrusive discovery absent a specific need—but later abandoned that stance, now asserting Grainge had “no meaningful involvement.” Drake counters that he never agreed to delay seeking Grainge’s files.

(For context, courts often require parties to try lower-level sources before hauling in “apex” leaders; it’s meant to prevent harassment where the executive has little unique information.) American Bar Association Holland & Knight

UMG’s pushback: “Baseless,” “save face,” and artistic expression

UMG has hammered Drake’s theory as a bid to “save face” after “losing a rap battle,” insisting the track’s barbs are nonactionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole—core features of the diss-track tradition protected by the First Amendment. In moving to dismiss, the label argued the suit “should be dismissed with prejudice.”

In coverage of Drake’s amended complaint, UMG said the allegations are “baseless” and an “affront to creative expression.”

UMG has also warned the discovery door swings both ways—publicly telling Drake to “be careful what you wish for,” while Drake’s team responded that he “has nothing to hide” and “looks forward to hearing from Lucian Grainge [and others] under oath.” 

Where the case stands

The discovery phase is active. A judge has already permitted Drake to seek core categories of documents—including Lamar’s recording agreements—over UMG’s objection that discovery was premature. That win keeps Drake’s evidence-gathering on track while the court weighs UMG’s motion to dismiss.

In a separate discovery skirmish, the court approved alternative service to reach a witness Drake claims has knowledge of alleged “covert tactics” used to promote the track; the order recounts attempts to serve the witness and allows service by mail and email. UMG denies any botting or related schemes.

Meanwhile, Drake’s amended pleading ties reputational harm to highly watched moments—the Super Bowl LIX halftime show and the Grammys—contending those broadcasts amplified the “pedophile” insinuations and increased threats, while noting the Super Bowl performance omitted the word “pedophile.” UMG disputes those theories and says context and artistic license control.

What to watch next

• Grainge custodial files:The court will decide whether UMG must search the CEO’s email and documents using negotiated terms. That ruling will help determine how far “apex” protections stretch here and whether Drake can test his “actual malice” theory at the top of UMG.
• Motion to dismiss:If the judge credits UMG’s arguments that the lyrics and promotion are protected expression or opinion, claims could be pared back or tossed; otherwise, more depositions and document fights lie ahead.
• Discovery scope:With discovery underway, both sides will press for sensitive materials; Note - the judge already rejected a request to halt discovery at an earlier stage.

🛑 It should be noted that the assertions in Drake’s lawsuit are merely allegations and have not been proven in a court of law.