Universal Music Group (UMG) is preparing to file a motion to dismiss rapper Drake’s defamation lawsuit against the music company, but in the meantime, the court has ruled the case can move forward to discovery.
Drake’s lawyers have also moved forward with a request for discovery in a separate legal action in Texas, which accuses UMG of engaging in “payola” to boost the popularity of Kendrick Lamar‘s Not Like Us, the anti-Drake diss track that became one of 2024’s biggest hits.
In an order on Tuesday (March 4), a federal judge in New York denied UMG’s request to adjourn a pretrial conference scheduled for April 2. That conference begins the process of discovery, in which Drake’s lawyers can request documents from UMG, and potentially depositions of UMG executives, related to the defamation case.
“It is not the practice of this court to routinely stay discovery pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss,” Judge Jeanette Vargas of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York wrote in the order, which can be read in full here.
In their motion to adjourn the pretrial conference, lawyers for UMG said they plan to file a motion to dismiss the case by March 17.
Drake filed the defamation complaint against UMG in January, accusing UMG of promoting a “false and malicious narrative” about the rapper through the lyrics, single artwork, and music video for Not Like Us.
Lamar’s music is distributed via UMG’s Interscope, while Drake’s music is distributed through UMG’s Republic Records.
Lamar is not named in the lawsuit because, as Drake’s lawyers put it in the complaint, the case is “entirely about UMG, the music company that decided to publish, promote, exploit, and monetize allegations that it understood were not only false but dangerous.”
In response, UMG told MBW that “not only are these claims untrue, but the notion that we would seek to harm the reputation of any artist — let alone Drake — is illogical.”
UMG asserted that Drake “seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music.”
Meanwhile, in a state court in Texas, Drake’s lawyers are pushing for discovery in a separate legal action that claims UMG had paid radio stations and other music media to play Not Like Us, without informing listeners of the fact.
Drake’s lawyers allege 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.”
The Texas case isn’t a lawsuit, rather a petition asking a court to allow Drake’s lawyers to investigate their claims, something that can be done under Texas’ Rule of Civil Procedure 202.
The petition initially named UMG and radio giant iHeartMedia as respondents, but earlier this week Drake and iHeart “reached an amicable resolution of the dispute” leaving UMG as the sole respondent.
iHeart issued a statement saying that “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.”
According to a report by 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.”
In late January, UMG asked the district court in Bexar County, Texas, to dismiss the petition by Drake’s lawyers, under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), an “anti-SLAPP” law meant to stop lawsuits that are “designed and intended to intimidate and punish people for exercising their First Amendment [freedom of speech] rights,” in the words of UMG’s motion.
“Not only are these claims untrue, but the notion that we would seek to harm the reputation of any artist — let alone Drake — is illogical.”
Universal Music Group
In a motion for discovery filed on Monday (March 3), Drake’s lawyers cited the same TCPA to request that they be allowed to investigate UMG’s activities with respect to Not Like Us.
The TCPA has an exemption for “commercial speech,” meaning that certain business practices can’t be defended using the law. UMG argued that its activities in promoting and distributing Not Like Us didn’t fall within that exemption, meaning they can invoke the law to have the case dismissed.
However, Drake’s lawyers argued they need to be able to investigate what UMG did with respect to Not Like Us in order to assess whether or not it amounted to “commercial speech.”
“Without this discovery, Drake cannot fairly test or refute the factual basis for UMG’s claims that, for example, it was acting merely as a ‘clearinghouse’ in promoting the song, or that it was not doing so in its ‘capacity as a seller’ of goods or services,” Drake’s lawyers wrote in the motion, which can be read in full here.
Drake’s lawyers are asking the court to allow them to depose a “corporate representative” of UMG to determine the company’s strategy to promote Not Like Us, among other things. They are also asking for internal UMG documents “sufficient to show UMG’s promotion strategy for Not Like Us.”
In a statement emailed to MBW, Drake’s legal team claimed that the ruling in the New York court and their motion for discovery in the Texas court “together represent major steps forward in holding UMG accountable to shareholders and artists for their repeated and egregious actions.”Music ComeOn
