On August 12, 2025, Drake’s legal team filed two motions that start with a shot across UMG’s bow:
“UMG is improperly shielding its CEO, Sir Lucian Grainge, from scrutiny in this litigation, despite his direct involvement in the publication and promotion of the defamatory recording, cover image, and video at issue.”
The motions demand the court compel UMG to produce:
- “The custodial files of Sir Lucian Grainge.”
- “An unredacted copy of Kendrick Lamar’s recording agreement with UMG.”
- “Financial and contractual records relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.”
The filings accuse UMG of reversing its own statements about Grainge’s role, pointing out that the company’s narrative shifted from “no involvement” to “no meaningful involvement” without ever searching his files.
Lucian Grainge: The CEO at the Heart of the Storm
Drake’s lawyers argue that Grainge is far from a distant corporate figurehead. They write:
“Grainge was physically present at the 2025 Grammy Awards celebrating ‘Not Like Us’ alongside Lamar’s team and has made public statements about Plaintiff’s stature in the industry, demonstrating his awareness of the impact of such a recording.”
The motion points to Grainge’s own words in 2022, calling Drake “one of the biggest artists of today” as evidence of his awareness of Drake’s market value.
And in an especially pointed citation, Drake’s team highlights Grainge’s past warning that:
“A single lie can destroy a reputation of integrity… it can be ruined in five minutes.”
They argue this shows the CEO understood exactly how damaging “Not Like Us” could be.
The “Apex” Argument UMG Cannot Keep Straight
UMG invoked the “apex custodian” doctrine to block Grainge’s inclusion in discovery, but Drake’s attorneys counter:
“There is no blanket prohibition on discovery from high-level executives in this District. Where, as here, the executive has unique personal knowledge of relevant facts, courts routinely compel production.”
They note UMG has offered three shifting rationales for blocking Grainge’s files: “no involvement,” “no meaningful involvement,” and “cumulative,” all without conducting a search.
“Modern e-discovery deduplication eliminates the concern of cumulative production. UMG’s refusal to even search Mr. Grainge’s custodial files is unjustified obstruction.”
The Kendrick Lamar Contract: “Virtually Unreadable”
When UMG produced Kendrick Lamar’s recording contract in June 2025, Drake’s lawyers say it was gutted by black ink:
“The agreement produced is so heavily redacted as to be virtually unreadable and incomprehensible.”
They believe the hidden sections likely contain clauses granting UMG editorial control over content, the ability to reject or alter songs and videos.
“A two-tier Protective Order, including an Attorneys’ Eyes Only designation, already protects against competitive harm. UMG’s ‘relevance redactions’ are improper and deprive Plaintiff of critical context.”
Follow the Money: The Interscope and Republic Rivalry
Drake’s team argues that UMG’s internal competition between labels like Republic Records (Drake) and Interscope (Lamar) creates financial motives for the alleged defamation.
“UMG’s label executives are rewarded based on the performance of their label relative to others in the UMG ecosystem. Interscope CEO John Janick therefore had a financial incentive to see Lamar’s success and Republic’s decline.”
To test this theory, they request:
- Janick’s compensation structure for the past five years.
- 2024 incentive metrics for Interscope.
- Monthly revenue and profit reports for the last five-and-a-half years.
- The valuation of Lamar’s catalog over the same period.
“These records will demonstrate the financial motives underlying UMG’s decision to promote the defamatory recording rather than suppress it.”
UMG’s History of Censorship and Selective Enforcement
The motions also demand records showing UMG’s past censorship of rap lyrics.
“Def Jam, a UMG label, intervened to remove certain verses from Pusha T’s ‘The Story of Adidon’ that were perceived as damaging to other artists. This selective enforcement is probative of UMG’s intent and actual malice here.”
By contrasting that intervention with their inaction on “Not Like Us”, Drake’s lawyers say they can show UMG’s choices were deliberate and targeted.
A Timeline of Discovery Breakdown
The declaration from attorney M. Annie Houghton-Larsen maps the collapse of cooperation:
- April 25, 2025: Drake proposes 28 custodians, UMG agrees to only five.
- May 2, 2025: UMG refuses Grainge’s inclusion, invoking “apex custodian.”
- June 2025: UMG produces the redacted Lamar contract.
- August 7, 2025: Meet-and-confer ends without resolution.
- August 12, 2025: Motions to compel filed.
In one letter, Drake’s counsel warns:
“Your refusal to even search Mr. Grainge’s custodial files, coupled with your reliance on shifting and unsupported rationales, is an obstruction of discovery and contrary to Rule 26 obligations.”
Beyond the Lawsuit: Hip-Hop’s Long History of Corporate Power Struggles
This case follows a decades-long pattern in which high-profile rap disputes have intersected with the business interests of the labels behind them. From Tupac vs. Biggie, where the East Coast and West Coast rivalry overlapped with Bad Boy Records and Death Row tensions, to 50 Cent vs. Ja Rule, where label rivalries shaped careers, the history of hip-hop is littered with beefs that executives quietly benefited from.
What makes Drake v. UMG different is that it is pulling the executives directly into the legal crossfire, demanding their private emails, their financial records, and the contracts they have fought to keep secret.
Lucian Grainge’s Empire and the Kendrick Lamar Factor
Since becoming CEO in 2011, Grainge has overseen billions in streaming-era growth, signed or retained megastars like Taylor Swift, Drake, Billie Eilish, and The Weeknd, and encouraged strategic competition between labels under the UMG umbrella.
Kendrick Lamar, signed to Interscope through his company pgLang, is one of the most acclaimed rappers of his generation. His 2024 track “Not Like Us” became both a chart-topping hit and a cultural flashpoint in the Drake feud.
Drake’s legal theory is simple: Grainge had the power to intervene, did not, and profited from the fallout.
Rap Lyrics, Defamation, and the “It’s Just Entertainment” Defense
UMG will likely argue that “Not Like Us” is artistic expression, part of a tradition of exaggerated diss tracks that are not meant to be taken literally. Drake’s counter is that the content was specific, tied to real-life allegations, and promoted in a way that blurred the line between art and fact.
If the court sides with Drake, labels may become more cautious about releasing songs that could be construed as factual attacks, altering the way diss tracks are handled across the industry.
Why UMG Will Fight to the Death on This Discovery
Producing Grainge’s communications could set a precedent that makes CEOs vulnerable to discovery in future litigation. Turning over unredacted artist contracts could weaken the company’s bargaining position. Revealing executive incentive structures could spark shareholder scrutiny.
Losing this battle could cost UMG far beyond this case, which is why the company is expected to mount an aggressive defense.
The Legal Precedent Drake’s Team Is Betting On
Apex Custodian Discovery
Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 2013 WL 1896932 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2013)
“There is no blanket prohibition on the deposition of high-level executives. The burden is on the party seeking to prevent discovery to show that the executive lacks unique personal knowledge.”
Reid v. Ingerman Smith LLP, 2012 WL 6720752 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2012)
“Where the executive has unique personal knowledge of the issues in the case, discovery from that executive is appropriate.”
How it helps Drake: Shows Grainge cannot be shielded if he has unique personal knowledge.
Improper Relevance Redactions
In re State Street Bank & Trust Co. Fixed Income Funds Inv. Litig., 2009 WL 1026013 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2009)
“Relevance redactions are generally disfavored as they deprive the requesting party of context that may be critical to understanding the unredacted portions.”
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 298 F.R.D. 184, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
“The fact that certain portions of a document may not relate to the dispute does not justify unilateral redaction by the producing party.”
How it helps Drake: Undercuts UMG’s rationale for producing a blacked-out Lamar contract.
Cumulative Evidence Claims
New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 461 F. Supp. 3d 80, 93 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
“The mere possibility of some overlap does not make the sought-after discovery cumulative. Duplicative material can be eliminated in production through standard deduplication methods.”
How it helps Drake: Counters the claim that Grainge’s files are duplicative.
Scope of Discovery — Rule 26
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.”
How it helps Drake: Confirms Grainge’s files, Lamar’s contract, and the financial records are relevant to his defamation claims.
Bottom Line: If Judge Jeannette A. Vargas applies these precedents as Drake’s lawyers argue, UMG may have to open the doors to its executive suite, its most guarded contracts, and its financial strategies, something no major label has ever been forced to do in a feud of this scale.
