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.”
