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
