Drake’s legal team has pushed back against Universal Music Group‘s request to pause the evidence-gathering process in the ongoing defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s hit track Not Like Us.
In a letter to Judge Jeanette A. Vargas filed Wednesday (March 20) and obtained by MBW, Drake’s attorney Michael J. Gottlieb argues that UMG’s request to freeze discovery should be denied.
“UMG has failed to meet its burden,” Gottlieb claims in the four-page letter, arguing that UMG’s motion to stay discovery “fails on all three factors” courts consider when evaluating such requests.
Gottlieb’s letter references the court’s own statement that “it is not the practice of this Court to routinely stay discovery pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss,” highlighting that such pauses are the exception rather than the rule.
The filing comes just one day after UMG asked the court for a stay of discovery, with UMG attorney Rollin A. Ransom arguing that “courts in this District have emphasized that defamation defendants must be protected from unnecessary discovery to safeguard First Amendment protections.”
Drake’s team challenges UMG’s claim that lyrics are mere opinion
A key part of UMG’s dismissal argument is that the controversial content in Not Like Us should be considered protected opinion rather than factual statements.
In its motion to dismiss, filed March 17, UMG contended that diss tracks are “protected opinion” that can’t be legally treated as statements of fact, arguing that Drake “lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated.”
Drake’s team strongly disagrees with this characterization. In their response, they claim that UMG’s argument “completely ignores the Complaint’s allegations that millions of people, all over the world, did understand the Defamatory Material as a factual assertion that Plaintiff is a pedophile.”
The new letter argues that Drake’s lawsuit contains extensive documentation showing that listeners interpreted Lamar’s lyrics as making factual claims about Drake, rather than just expressing artistic opinions.
Gottlieb also claims that UMG disregards allegations that “the statements in question (and surrounding context) implied that the allegations were based on undisclosed evidence and the audience understood as much.”
Drake’s team disputes UMG’s “actual malice” defense
Another important legal issue relates to the concept of “actual malice” — a critical standard in defamation cases involving public figures like Drake.
UMG’s motion to dismiss asserted that Drake’s complaint has not established “actual malice” on the part of UMG, with the company arguing that it “released a rap diss track, conveying fiery rhetoric and insults — not factual assessments, much less false ones.”
Gottlieb’s letter argues that the proper standard for actual malice requires showing statements were made “with knowledge that the statements were false or with reckless disregard as to their falsity.”
Drake’s attorneys claim their complaint “adequately pleads that UMG knew or had reason to know that the allegations in the Defamatory Material were false” and notes that “UMG concedes that the allegations are not true.”
The filing states that “UMG brazenly continued to publish and promote the Defamatory Material even after Plaintiff’s home was attacked by a gunman, after his businesses were defaced, after Plaintiff made UMG aware of the falsity of the allegations (and the harm they were causing), and after UMG knew that the public believed the allegations to be true statements of fact.”
Discovery would not be overly burdensome, Drake’s attorneys argue
Drake’s legal team disputes UMG’s argument that responding to the rapper’s 18 document requests would create an undue burden for the company.
According to UMG’s letter seeking a stay of discovery, Drake’s legal team has requested “confidential, proprietary, and highly commercially sensitive documents,” including all contracts between Kendrick Lamar and UMG, as well as details of the “compensation structure and annual incentive plans” for Interscope CEO John Janick over the past five years.
“UMG has the burden to ‘present specific facts,'” Gottlieb’s letter argues, before claiming that UMG “has not stated how long it expects discovery to take, the costs associated with discovery, or any other indicator that might demonstrate why discovery will be overly burdensome.”
The letter points out that 16 of Drake’s document requests cover less than a one-year time period, making them reasonably limited in scope.
In a statement reported by MBW, Gottlieb previously called UMG’s request for a stay of discovery a sign the company is “desperate” to avoid handing over evidence in the case, describing the motion as “a ploy to delay producing documents and communications that UMG hopes to keep hidden and buried.”
Drake fears evidence preservation issues if discovery is delayed
Drake’s team expresses “serious concerns about not just UMG’s preservation of documents, but preservation by third parties as well, including with respect to categories of electronically stored information that are not always subject to regular business recordkeeping practices, such as mobile data.”
In essence, Drake’s attorneys are claiming that important evidence, particularly communications on mobile devices, might not be properly preserved if the discovery process is delayed.
The letter also states that “Plaintiff’s injuries accrue by the day, and Plaintiff has sought injunctive relief,” indicating the urgent nature of Drake’s claims.
Drake’s lawsuit against UMG, filed in January, alleges that the company promoted a “false and malicious narrative” about Drake via the content of the lyrics, single artwork and music video for Not Like Us.
The dispute over discovery is the latest development in the legal fallout from one of 2024’s biggest hits and a high-profile rap feud. Not Like Us was released in May 2024 as part of a series of diss tracks exchanged between Drake and Lamar.
This development follows Drake’s withdrawal of his previous legal petition against Universal Music Group and Spotify in January, which had accused the companies of artificially inflating streams for Lamar’s track.
Music Business Worldwide