At a pre-trial conference this morning in New York, Judge Jeanette Vargas ruled that the discovery process in Drake’s defamation lawsuit over Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us can begin.
Universal Music Group (UMG) asked the US federal court judge for a stay of discovery in the lawsuit on March 18, a day after the company filed a motion to dismiss the case.
As reported last week, Drake’s legal team pushed back against the request to pause the evidence-gathering process.
Following the decision made at this morning’s pre-trial conference, the discovery process for both parties can now move forward.
UMG’s motion to dismiss is still pending, with a hearing date set for June 30.
In a letter to Judge Jeanette A. Vargas filed last Wednesday (March 20) and obtained by MBW, Drake’s attorney Michael J. Gottlieb argued 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 referenced 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 arrived 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 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.
Today’s decision 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.
UMG filed a motion to dismiss the case on March 17, 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 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.
In response to today’s ruling, Drake’s lead attorney, Michael Gottlieb, Partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher issued the following statement:
“Now it’s time to see what UMG was so desperately trying to hide.”
MBW has reached out to Universal Music Group for comment.
Music Business Worldwide
