FOLLOW US

Her legal team bought extra time, filed responses anyway, and delivered pages of empty objections. Now a judge in Los Angeles is weighing sanctions — and the options on the table could be far worse than a fine.

SAMUEL LÓPEZ·USA HERALD·APRIL 26, 2026·5 MIN READ

What's happening in a Los Angeles courtroom right now is bigger than a celebrity beef. This is a case study in how legal obstruction works — and what happens when a judge decides they've had enough of it.

The lawsuit between Nicki Minaj and her former manager Brandon Jovan Garrett centers on serious allegations: assault, battery, and emotional distress. But right now, the bigger story isn't the underlying incident. It's what Minaj's legal team is doing — or rather, not doing — inside the discovery process.

SANCTIONS SOUGHT

$3,900

ORIGINAL DEADLINE MISSED

Mid-Feb 2026

RESPONSES FILED

March 6, 2026

COURT FILING DESCRIBES

"Sham Responses"

Garrett's attorneys filed a motion that doesn't mince words. They accuse Minaj of missing a mid-February deadline to answer written discovery questions — then, after her team asked for and received extra time, she filed responses on March 6 that were so packed with what the motion calls "vague, repetitive boilerplate objections" that they contained virtually zero usable information.

The court filing calls those responses "patently deficient." It says they've "obstructed the discovery process" and forced Garrett to spend additional money on legal fees just trying to get straight answers to straightforward questions.

"Repeated delays and sham responses have made it impossible for Garrett to move his case forward."

What were the questions? Nothing exotic. Garrett's team wanted Minaj to explain her side of the alleged assault in her own words — specifically, to detail any facts that support her claim that she never threatened his safety. They also asked whether Garrett actually suffered lost wages or emotional harm as a result of what happened between them.

These aren't trick questions. They're standard civil discovery. And according to the motion, Minaj's legal team responded to them with pages of legal filler and zero substance.

WHAT THE JUDGE CAN ACTUALLY DO

Here's where this gets serious. Courts don't tolerate discovery abuse — and they have a range of tools to address it. At the low end, a judge can order sanctions in the form of attorney's fees or a monetary fine (Garrett is seeking $3,900). At the high end, a judge can issue a default judgment — essentially handing the case to the opposing party without a full trial.

But here's what most people are missing: the sanctions sword cuts both ways.

IF JUDGE RULES AGAINST MINAJ

Sanctions issued. She pays Garrett's attorney fees. Judge could also order her to produce full, substantive answers within a short window — or face further consequences.

IF JUDGE RULES IN MINAJ'S FAVOR

If the court finds her objections had legal merit — or that Garrett filed this motion prematurely, without cause, or to harass and overburden her — sanctions could flip to Garrett instead.

This is the part of legal proceedings that cable news rarely explains to you. Discovery disputes have two edges. If the judge decides Garrett's legal team moved too fast, filed without sufficient basis, or used this motion as a harassment tool — they're the ones writing a check.

On top of sanctions, the judge also has authority to issue a compelled response order — requiring Minaj to provide complete, non-objection-riddled answers and any requested documents within a defined, often very short, timeframe. That's not a slap on the wrist. That's the court stripping away legal maneuvering room and forcing the facts into the open.

WHY THIS MATTERS BEYOND THE HEADLINES

Discovery is the backbone of civil litigation. It's the process by which both sides gather the evidence they need to build — or defend — a case. When one party stonewalls it with deliberate vagueness or floods the other side with meaningless objections, the entire system breaks down. Judges know it. They've seen it before. And they don't like it.

The real question now is whether the court will view Minaj's March 6 responses as a legitimate exercise of legal rights — or as exactly what Garrett's team is calling them: a calculated strategy to delay, obstruct, and run up the other side's legal costs.

The judge's next move will answer that question. And when it comes, we'll be the first to tell you what it means.