Drake’s Legal Team Cleared to Expose UMG’s Secrets After Judge’s Ruling

Judge Jeanette Vargas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled against Universal Music Group (UMG) in its attempt to delay discovery in the ongoing lawsuit filed by Drake. The decision marks a crucial turning point in the case, allowing Drake’s legal team to proceed with evidence collection, including deposing high-level UMG executives and demanding the production of internal records.

Following the ruling, Michael J. Gottlieb, lead counsel for Drake and a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, issued a pointed statement:

“Now it’s time to see what UMG was so desperately trying to hide.“

This ruling clears the way for an extensive legal inquiry into UMG’s business practices and its alleged role in disseminating and profiting from defamatory content.

Background of the Lawsuit

Drake’s lawsuit against UMG stems from the release of Kendrick Lamar’s 2024 track “Not Like Us,” which was distributed under UMG’s Interscope Records. The track, a high-profile diss song, allegedly contains false and defamatory claims against Drake, including accusations that he engaged in criminal misconduct.

Drake’s legal team asserts that UMG actively facilitated and promoted the distribution of the song while failing to take any remedial action to mitigate its damaging impact. The lawsuit further alleges that UMG engaged in unlawful promotional tactics to maximize the song’s commercial reach.

UMG, in its defense, has maintained that diss tracks fall under the umbrella of protected artistic expression and that the lawsuit is an improper attempt to suppress free speech within the music industry.

UMG’s Motion to Stay Discovery and the Court’s Rationale for Denial

UMG sought to stay discovery, arguing that it would be premature to begin the evidence-gathering process while its motion to dismiss the case remains pending. The label contended that engaging in discovery at this stage would impose undue burdens and raise concerns regarding First Amendment protections.

However, Judge Vargas ruled against UMG’s motion, reasoning that delaying discovery would hinder the timely progression of the case and that Drake’s claims warranted a full evidentiary review. The ruling affirms that the court is willing to explore the substantive claims at issue rather than dismissing them outright.

This decision permits Drake’s legal team to initiate a comprehensive discovery process, which may include:

• Deposition of UMG Executives Key figures within UMG could be compelled to provide sworn testimony regarding the company’s decision-making process surrounding “Not Like Us.”
• Production of Internal Documents Drake’s attorneys will likely request internal emails, contracts, and promotional records to examine whether UMG knowingly facilitated the spread of false information.
• Examination of Promotional Practices The court may scrutinize UMG’s marketing strategies to determine whether they engaged in deceptive or unlawful promotional activities.

Implications of the Ruling

Impact on the Music Industry

This legal battle holds significant implications for the broader music industry, particularly concerning the responsibilities of record labels in regulating content that may contain defamatory material. Should Drake succeed in his claims, record labels may face heightened scrutiny regarding their role in disseminating controversial content.

Potential Legal Precedents

The case could also set important legal precedents concerning the limits of artistic expression in diss tracks and whether music labels can be held liable for defamatory lyrics released under their umbrella. While courts have historically granted broad artistic freedoms to musicians, this lawsuit challenges whether a label’s promotional involvement can cross into legally actionable territory.

Strategic Considerations for UMG

With discovery moving forward, UMG faces increased legal exposure. The company must now decide whether to comply with discovery requests, attempt to settle the case, or double down on its defense strategy. Given the high-profile nature of the dispute, any unfavorable disclosures during discovery could damage UMG’s reputation and financial standing.

Related Legal Disputes and Prior Settlements

This case is not the first legal battle stemming from the “Not Like Us” controversy. In March 2025, Drake settled a separate dispute with iHeartMedia, in which he alleged that UMG engaged in illicit pay-for-play schemes to boost the song’s radio presence. The settlement led to the dismissal of Drake’s claims against iHeartMedia with prejudice, preventing him from refiling.

The resolution of the iHeartMedia dispute underscores Drake’s legal strategy of holding multiple entities accountable for what he perceives as coordinated actions against him. With the iHeartMedia matter now settled, Drake’s legal team is focusing its efforts squarely on UMG.

What Comes Next?

With discovery now authorized, the lawsuit is expected to enter a more contentious phase as both parties prepare for an exhaustive exchange of evidence. Several key developments are anticipated in the coming months:

• Depositions of UMG Executives High-ranking UMG officials may be called to testify under oath regarding their role in distributing and promoting “Not Like Us.”
• Legal Motions and Challenges UMG may seek to limit the scope of discovery through protective orders or additional legal motions.
• Potential Settlement Talks While no settlement discussions have been publicly disclosed, UMG may weigh the risks of continued litigation against the potential fallout from damaging revelations during discovery.

Given the stakes involved, industry observers will be closely watching how this lawsuit unfolds and whether it will reshape the legal landscape for the music business.