What “Apex” Discovery Means In Drake’s Case
Courts often resist intrusive discovery against high-ranking executives unless the requesting party shows the information is uniquely in the executive’s possession and cannot be obtained elsewhere. That’s the debate now unfolding: did decisions about the track’s release and promotion, and any knowledge of defamatory risk, run through Grainge in a way that makes his files indispensable? Drake’s team says yes; UMG says no and that the case fails as a matter of law regardless. USA Herald coverage captures the core legal fault lines—actual malice, opinion vs. fact, and corporate knowledge. USA Herald
Supporters, Critics, and the Accountability Question
Away from court, the rhetoric gets louder. In April 2024, Kanye West labeled Grainge Drake’s “rich baby daddy” during an interview about the feud—a viral line that turbocharged online narratives about industry power.
Critics argue Grainge sits behind a fortress of prestige and relationships that makes accountability elusive. Supporters counter that his record—reviving recorded-music economics, shepherding UMG’s public listing, and building systems to police promotion—reflects lawful stewardship at the industry’s most scrutinized label. His board’s extension to 2028 signals institutional confidence, not impunity. Both things can be true: influence attracts litigation; documents and doctrine decide outcomes. UMG
