{"id":7333,"date":"2025-08-13T01:56:26","date_gmt":"2025-08-13T01:56:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/drake-wants-to-see-kendricks-record-deal-in-not-like-us-lawsuit\/"},"modified":"2025-08-13T01:56:26","modified_gmt":"2025-08-13T01:56:26","slug":"drake-wants-to-see-kendricks-record-deal-in-not-like-us-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/drake-wants-to-see-kendricks-record-deal-in-not-like-us-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Drake Wants To See Kendrick’s Record Deal in \u2018Not Like Us\u2019 Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tDrake\u2019s lawyers are trying to get their hands on a swath of potentially relevant evidence in their lawsuit over Universal Music Group\u2019s promotion of the chart-topping Kendrick Lamar diss track \u201cNot Like Us,\u201d including Lamar\u2019s record deal and CEO Lucian Grainge<\/strong>\u2019s emails about the song.<\/p>\n

\n\tDiscovery is underway in Drake\u2019s lawsuit accusing UMG of plotting to boost the popularity of \u201cNot Like Us,\u201d Lamar\u2019s hit 2024 Interscope Records track that called the Canadian superstar (Aubrey Drake Graham) a \u201ccertified pedophile.\u201d Interscope is a subsidiary of UMG, as is Drake\u2019s label, Republic Records.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tIn the discovery phase of litigation, each side sifts through its documents and turns over relevant files to the other. But UMG has refused to produce much of what Drake\u2019s team has requested.<\/p>\n

\n\tDrake\u2019s lawyers are now seeking court orders forcing UMG to turn over the evidence they want, including an unredacted version of Lamar\u2019s contract with Interscope. In a series of motions filed Tuesday (Aug. 12), attorney Michael Gottlieb <\/strong>says the 22-page record deal produced by UMG is almost entirely redacted, \u201crendering it virtually unreadable and incomprehensible.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tUMG has also refused to turn over emails and text messages from Grainge, claiming the CEO had \u201cno meaningful involvement\u201d in the release or promotion of \u201cNot Like Us.\u201d Gottlieb said on Tuesday that the company\u2019s refusal \u201cis unsupported by law and would prejudice plaintiff\u2019s ability to test and prove his claims.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cPlaintiff\u2019s amended complaint contains numerous allegations specific to Grainge, including his role in and knowledge of the scheme to defame and harass plaintiff, and UMG\u2019s use of deceptive business practices regarding the same,\u201d writes Gottlieb. \u201cUMG\u2019s insistence on shielding Grainge from document discovery is unfair, unwarranted and inconsistent with fundamental principles of discovery.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tGottlieb says Grainge holds a \u201cposition of control\u201d over artists like Lamar and that, as CEO, he approved the release and promotion of \u201cNot Like Us.\u201d As for Grainge\u2019s supposed motivation for defaming Drake, Gottlieb says the executive is \u201cwell known for the encouragement of competition between the UMG record labels\u201d and that the company had an incentive to devalue Drake\u2019s brand in order to gain negotiating leverage ahead of upcoming contract extension talks.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Drake<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\t\u201cIf, as UMG claims, Grainge had \u2018no meaningful involvement in the matters and decisions at issue in this litigation,\u2019 then UMG will have little, if anything, to produce to plaintiff from his files, and the review process would impose minimal burden on UMG,\u201d adds Gottlieb.<\/p>\n

\n\tOther evidence sought by Drake\u2019s legal team on Tuesday includes documents about Interscope\u2019s financial profits, the valuation of Lamar\u2019s catalog and the compensation of label CEO John Janick<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n\tGottlieb also argues that UMG should produce information about whether it has ever censored or declined to promote content that it deemed defamatory. Specifically, the court filings suggest that UMG-owned label Def Jam may have cut some of the more offensive verses from Pusha T\u2019s own 2018 Drake diss track, \u201cThe Story of Adidon.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cSuch documents would reveal why, and under what circumstances, UMG believes it is appropriate to censor its artists\u2019 expression, which plaintiff could evaluate alongside UMG\u2019s decisions regarding \u2018Not Like Us,\u2019\u201d writes Gottlieb. \u201cUMG\u2019s past practice, and knowledge regarding prior defamatory material it has refused to publish, would be highly probative of UMG\u2019s knowledge here.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tA rep for UMG did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday.<\/p>\n

\n\tUMG has vehemently denied that it defamed Drake or did anything untoward in its promotion of \u201cNot Like Us.\u201d The company says Drake is just embarrassed after losing his very public rap battle with Lamar and is now trying to \u201csave face\u201d and \u201csalve his wounds\u201d with misguided litigation.<\/p>\n

\n\tJudge Jeannette A. Vargas in New York federal court is currently weighing UMG\u2019s motion to dismiss the case outright as legally invalid. The judge held a hearing earlier this summer, and her ruling could come any day now.<\/p>\n

\n\tThis story was updated on Aug. 12 at 8:08 p.m. ET to add information about additional discovery sought by Drake\u2019s team.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Drake\u2019s lawyers are trying to get their hands on a swath of potentially relevant evidence in their lawsuit over Universal Music Group\u2019s promotion of the chart-topping Kendrick Lamar […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7334,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[379,441,4334,303,178],"class_list":["post-7333","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-deal","tag-drake","tag-kendricks","tag-lawsuit","tag-record"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7333","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7333"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7333\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7334"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}