Drake’s legal battle with Universal Music Group has intensified, with new court filings revealing the extent to which the rapper’s legal team is seeking access to internal UMG documents. They include Kendrick Lamar’s recording contract with Universal, which Drake’s lawyers argue is central to proving their defamation case.
In a declaration filed in federal court on August 12 seeking to compel document production from UMG Chairman and CEO Sir Lucian Grainge, Drake’s legal team at Willkie Farr & Gallagher detailed months of discovery disputes with UMG and demanded access to documents from the company’s highest-ranking executives
The filing, obtained by MBW, can be read in full here.
At the center of the dispute is Drake’s allegation that UMG had contractual authority over Kendrick Lamar’s music and deliberately chose to release and promote Not Like Us, which Drake claims contains defamatory allegations about him.
According to the court documents, Drake’s legal team has been seeking “all contracts and agreements between [UMG] and Kendrick Lamar Duckworth, his agents, or anyone working on his behalf, including all contracts and agreements reflecting Your right to approve, reject, refuse to publish, edit, amend, alter, or veto the publication of Kendrick Lamar Duckworth’s Musical Works, Music Videos, or other content.”
UMG produced heavily redacted Kendrick Lamar contract
The discovery battle reached a flashpoint when UMG produced what Drake’s lawyers describe as an incomprehensible version of Lamar’s recording agreement.
In a July 3 letter to UMG’s counsel, Drake’s legal team complained that “you produced a heavily redacted version of the Interscope Agreement with Kendrick Lamar… the extent of your redactions — which cover the vast majority of the 22-page agreement — render the agreement unreadable and incomprehensible”.
Drake’s lawyers argued that “the redactions are plainly improper, especially because the parties specifically agreed to treat these types of contracts as Attorneys’ Eyes Only under the terms of the Protective Order”.
The legal team has now demanded that “UMG produce an unredacted version of the document”.
The contract details are crucial to Drake’s case because his lawyers allege that UMG executives had the contractual power to prevent the release of Not Like Us but chose not to exercise that authority.
(Interestingly, as previously noted, Lamar is not a defendant in Drake’s case – despite being the author of the allegedly defamatory lyrics.)
The lawsuit specifically targets UMG’s “right to approve, reject, refuse to publish, edit, amend, alter, or veto the publication” of Lamar’s content.
Drake’s legal strategy centers on the premise that UMG’s highest-ranking executives, including Sir Lucian Grainge, John Janick (Interscope), and Monte and Avery Lipman (Republic), were personally involved in approving and promoting content they knew to be defamatory.
UMG has to date resisted providing documents from these executives, initially claiming they were “apex custodians” exempt from discovery requirements.
However, Drake’s lawyers claim that UMG later abandoned this argument after being presented with case law showing “there is ‘no blanket prohibition on taking discovery from high-level executives'” in federal court.
UMG execs pulled into the fray
Both Drake and Lamar release their records via UMG, through Republic Records and Interscope, respectively.
In court filings, Drake’s lawyers have argued that “Lucian Grainge and John Janick were involved in the initial publication of [Not Like Us’s] Recording and Image, while Avery and Monte Lipman, as the President/COO and CEO of Drake’s label Republic Records, failed to prevent their publication.”
Drake’s team also alleges that “John Janick is particularly relevant to UMG’s decision to publish and promote the Defamatory Material because he was financially incentivized both to have Interscope surpass its annual projections and to have Interscope outperform vis-à-vis Republic.”
Furthermore, Drake’s lawyers believe it’s relevant to their case that Sir Lucian Grainge was present at the 2025 Grammy Awards when Lamar’s song won Record of the Year, captured on video celebrating Lamar’s wins.
Drake’s lawsuit alleges that UMG was “incentivized to devalue Drake’s music and brand in order to gain leverage in negotiations for an extension” of his contract, connecting this directly to Grainge’s “encouragement of competition between UMG record labels”.
As such, Drake’s lawyers are additionally pursuing “all Documents and Communications internal to UMG relating to the renegotiation or anticipated renegotiation of Drake’s current contract with UMG and/or negotiation of a new contract, including, but not limited to Documents and Communications discussing UMG’s leverage over Drake, the value of Drake’s Recording Catalog, the costs of extending Drake’s current contract, the costs of entering into a new contract with Drake”.
They’re also seeking “all Documents and Communications relating to the negotiations of Kendrick Lamar Duckworth’s current contract with UMG” for the period from January 1, 2023, to May 4, 2024.
This lawsuit represents the latest escalation in what began as Drake’s petition against UMG and Spotify in November 2024, which he later withdrew. Instead, he filed this defamation suit in January 2025.
In his suit, Drake argues that UMG “decided to publish, promote, exploit and monetize allegations that it understood were not only false, but dangerous.”
The discovery process kicked off in April, weeks after UMG asked a judge for a stay of discovery in the lawsuit.
UMG has not yet publicly responded to the latest court filing.
The company has already slammed Drake’s amended defamation lawsuit.
In a statement from May, UMG’s lawyers said: “Nowhere in the hundred-plus page ‘legal’ blather written by Drake’s lawyers do they bother to acknowledge that Drake himself has written and performed massively successful songs containing equally provocative taunts against other artists.
“Nor do they mention that it was Drake who started this particular exchange. Apparently, Drake’s lawyers believe that when Drake willingly participates in a performative rap-battle of music and poetry, he can be ‘defamed’ even though he engages in the exact same form of creative expression.
“Drake’s lawyers can also keep seeking to ‘uncover’ evidence of wild conspiracies as to why one song that upset Drake had massive global appeal, but there is nothing to “uncover.” Except for this: by working tirelessly in partnership with our artists, we achieve global success for them and their music.
“Our continuing partnership with Drake and his enduring success is a shining example. Despite his lawyers’ attempts to silence other artists and threaten the companies that work with them, we remain committed to propelling Drake’s career while maintaining our unwavering support of all our artists’ creative expression. Drake’s included.”Music Business Worldwide
