A day after it filed a motion to dismiss the case, Universal Music Group (UMG) asked a US federal court judge for a stay of discovery in the ongoing defamation lawsuit brought by rapper Drake over Kendrick Lamar’s hit Not Like Us.
If granted, the stay would prevent Drake’s lawyers from requesting information and documents from UMG relating to the ongoing lawsuit, until a ruling has been made on the motion to dismiss.
“Critically, courts in this District have emphasized that defamation defendants must be protected from unnecessary discovery to safeguard First Amendment protections,” Rollin A. Ransom, an attorney for UMG, wrote in a letter to Judge Jeannette Vargas of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The letter – which was filed with the court on Tuesday (March 18) and seen by MBW, says that Drake’s lawyers have “requested broad discovery going to all of [Drake’s] claims and allegations,” and that these requests “impose undue burden on UMG, particularly as discovery is likely to be rendered moot upon resolution of the motion to dismiss.”
Drake’s legal team has asked for “confidential, proprietary, and highly commercially sensitive documents,” the letter stated, including all contracts between Kendrick Lamar and UMG, as well as the “compensation structure and annual incentive plans” for Interscope CEO John Janick over the past five years.
Kendrick Lamar’s music is released through UMG-owned label Interscope, while Drake’s music is released through UMG’s Republic Records.
In a statement, Michael J. Gottlieb, an attorney for Drake, said UMG’s request for a stay of discovery shows the company is “desperate” to avoid handing over evidence in the case.
“This motion is a ploy to delay producing documents and communications that UMG hopes to keep hidden and buried. If UMG has nothing to hide, it should not have an issue with discovery,” Gottlieb said.
“Courts in this District have emphasized that defamation defendants must be protected from unnecessary discovery to safeguard First Amendment protections.”
Rollin A. Ransom, attorney for Universal Music Group
Released in May of last year, Lamar’s Not Like Us was one of the biggest hits of 2024, and marked the rapper’s fourth No. 1 track in the US. Lamar performed the song during his Super Bowl halftime show in February.
Not Like Us was one of a series of diss tracks put out by Drake and Lamar in an ongoing war of words between the two rappers.
UMG has made the First Amendment (freedom of speech) a key pillar in its defense against Drake’s lawsuit, in which the rapper alleges that UMG promoted a “false and malicious narrative” about Drake via the content of the lyrics, single artwork and music video for Not Like Us.
Drake’s complaint against UMG, filed in January, also alleges that the release and promotion of Not Like Us resulted in “physical threat to Drake’s safety” as well as “the bombardment of online harassment” and caused “fears for the safety and security of himself, his family and his friends.”
In a response to the lawsuit, UMG said Drake is attempting to “weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music.”
UMG continued: “We have not and do not engage in defamation — against any individual. At the same time, we will vigorously defend this litigation to protect our people and our reputation, as well as any artist who might directly or indirectly become a frivolous litigation target for having done nothing more than write a song.”
On Monday (March 17), UMG filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that diss tracks are “protected opinion” that can’t be legally treated as a statement of fact.
Drake “lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated,” the motion asserted.
“Instead of accepting the loss like the unbothered rap artist he often claims to be, he has sued his own record label in a misguided attempt to salve his wounds.”
The motion noted that Drake himself has himself rapped about “likin’ young girls” – the very same allegation that Kendrick Lamar made against Drake in Not Like Us.
The motion also asserted that Drake’s complaint has not established “actual malice” on the part of UMG. Under US defamation law, it’s not enough for a plaintiff to prove that a person or company spread false information about them – they also have to show that the false information was spread maliciously.
“UMG released a rap diss track, conveying fiery rhetoric and insults – not factual assessments, much less false ones,” UMG’s motion stated.
The case is separate from one that Drake filed against UMG in a Texas state district court last November.
In that case – which is not a lawsuit, but rather a precursor to a potential lawsuit – Drake’s attorneys have asked the Texas court to grant them discovery in order to determine whether UMG had paid broadcasters and other music media to artificially inflate the popularity of Not Like Us.
Drake’s lawyers alleged that UMG “engaged in deliberate, irregular, and inappropriate business practices – including covert and illegal pay-to-play (“payola”) deals – to create a record-shattering spread of Not Like Us.”
Drake’s lawyers had originally named iHeartMedia, the US’s largest radio broadcasting network, as a respondent in the Texas case along with UMG.
However, earlier this month, Drake’s lawyers and iHeartMedia confirmed that they had settled the matter out of court, and iHeartMedia was dropped from the legal action.
“In exchange for documents that showed iHeart did nothing wrong, Drake agreed to drop his petition. No payments were made – by either one of us,” iHeartMedia said in a statement to MBW.
However, in a report from the Associated Press, a representative for Drake disputed iHeart’s claim, saying the radio company “has not provided a single document as of yet to Drake, let alone any information that showed they did nothing wrong.”Music Business Worldwide
