Universal Music Group CEO Sir Lucian Grainge has filed a sworn declaration pushing back against Drake’s attempts to force him to provide documents in the rapper’s defamation lawsuit. Grainge describes the artist’s claims in that suit as “farcical” and “groundless.”
In the declaration, filed on August 14 in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York and obtained by MBW, Grainge states that he “had never heard the recording ‘Not Like Us,’ nor ever saw the corresponding cover art or music video, until after they were released by Interscope Records.”
Adds Grainge: “Whilst, as part of my role, I certainly have financial oversight of and responsibility for UMG’s global businesses, the proposition that I was involved in, much less responsible for, reviewing and approving the content of ‘Not Like Us’, its cover art or music video, or for determining or directing the promotion of those materials, is groundless and indeed ridiculous.”
“The premise of Drake’s motion — that he could not have lost a rap battle unless it was the product of some imagined secret conspiracy going to the top of UMG’s corporate structure — is absurd.”
UMG’s legal reps
Drake’s legal team had sought to compel UMG to add Grainge as a document custodian in their ongoing discovery battle, claiming the company’s global CEO was personally involved in approving Kendrick Lamar’s diss track Not Like Us, which forms the basis of Drake’s defamation case against UMG.
However, in a strongly-worded letter to the court opposing Drake’s motion, UMG’s lawyers called the request “a transparent attempt to use discovery to harass UMG and force it to waste time and resources out of spite”.
“The premise of Drake’s motion — that he could not have lost a rap battle unless it was the product of some imagined secret conspiracy going to the top of UMG’s corporate structure — is absurd,” UMG’s attorneys wrote in their August 14 filing.
Grainge dismisses “wild conspiracy” claims
In his declaration, Grainge directly addresses Drake’s allegations, stating that the claim he was behind a scheme to “devalue” Drake’s brand through the release and promotion of Not Like Us “makes no sense due to the fact that the company that I run, Universal Music Group N.V., has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Drake, including longstanding and critical financial support for his recording career, the purchase and ownership of the bulk of his recording catalog, and the purchase of his music publishing rights.”
The UMG CEO further explained that he runs “a publicly-traded, multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation whose operations in over sixty countries covering nearly 200 markets ultimately report up to me”.
“Universal Music Group has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Drake, including longstanding and critical financial support for his recording career, the purchase and ownership of the bulk of his recording catalog, and the purchase of his music publishing rights.”
Sir Lucian Grainge, UMG
Drake’s first run of classic studio albums – including Scorpion, More Life, Views, Nothing Was The Same, and Take Care – were signed to Cash Money/Young Money Records.
As MBW has previously covered, Universal Music Group confirmed it bought Cash Money catalog , including the Drake recordings, in an investor update in 2021.
Since 2021’s Certified Lover Boy, Drake has owned his modern recordings, released via OVO/Republic.
Grainge’s declaration continues: “Our business encompasses over 100 record labels (as well as a multinational music publishing division, global merchandise and direct to consumer businesses, the worldwide Virgin Music label services, short and long form audiovisual production, and a variety of other businesses), each with its own CEO/President and its own management structure.
“Collectively these businesses issue tens of thousands of releases and product each month. My focus is on developing and implementing the global strategy that will shape UMG for generations to come.
“I further recognize that a frequent strategy of UMG’s litigation opponents is to attempt to waste my and UMG’s time and resources with discovery of the sort that Drake is seeking here — either in an attempt to gain media attention or in an effort to force some kind of commercial renegotiation or financial concessions.”
Sir Lucian Grainge, UMG
“In light of this responsibility, the proposition that I am in the weeds as to the release and promotion of any particular sound recording, from the thousands of UMG releases throughout the world, is farcical“.
Grainge also addressed the pattern of such discovery requests in litigation, stating: “I am accustomed (and unfortunately largely resigned) to personal attacks, and I further recognize that a frequent strategy of UMG’s litigation opponents is to attempt to waste my and UMG’s time and resources with discovery of the sort that Drake is seeking here — either in an attempt to gain media attention or in an effort to force some kind of commercial renegotiation or financial concessions.”
UMG opposes “intrusive” financial discovery requests
In a separate letter filed the same day, UMG’s lawyers opposed Drake’s demands for extensive financial records, including Interscope CEO John Janick‘s compensation details dating back to 2021, Interscope’s monthly revenues and profits over multiple years, and documents showing the value of Lamar’s recording catalogue since January 2020.
“Drake’s second letter-motion seeks to compel the production of documents responding to certain requests for production,” UMG’s attorneys wrote. “As with his motion concerning Sir Lucian Grainge, this motion is nothing but an obvious attempt to misuse the discovery process to pursue irrelevant and overbroad requests principally calculated to harass, embarrass or annoy Drake’s perceived adversaries.”
The company argued that Drake’s request for John Janick’s private compensation details going back four years before “Not Like Us” was even released fails to meet relevance standards.
“Drake manufactures the basis for such a motive out of thin air, speculating that because UMG’s CEO encourages competition between its record label divisions, UMG’s compensation structure must be a zero-sum game that ‘pitted Lamar’s label against Drake’s label.”
UMG legal reps
“Drake makes no attempt to explain how his intrusive request for five years’ worth of individual compensation records is conceivably relevant or proportional to this case, which centers on the release and promotion of a single track and music video in 2024,” UMG’s lawyers stated.
UMG also pushed back against Drake’s theory that Janick was incentivized to promote Lamar over Drake due to inter-label competition, calling it manufactured speculation.
“Drake manufactures the basis for such a motive out of thin air, speculating that because UMG’s CEO encourages competition between its record label divisions, UMG’s compensation structure must be a zero-sum game that ‘pitted Lamar’s label against Drake’s label,’” the filing reads.
Battle over Kendrick Lamar contract details intensifies
The discovery dispute has also intensified around Drake’s demands to see Kendrick Lamar’s full recording contract with UMG.
Drake’s legal team argues they need the complete, unredacted contract to prove their case that UMG had the contractual authority to prevent the release of “Not Like Us” but chose not to exercise that power.
UMG has produced portions of Lamar’s contract relating to the company’s rights to approve, reject or modify content, but with extensive redactions protecting commercially sensitive information. Drake’s lawyers have complained that the redactions “cover the vast majority of the 22-page agreement” and “render the agreement unreadable and incomprehensible.”
However, UMG’s attorneys argue that Drake “cannot explain why the rest of the contract is relevant” beyond the sections already produced. They contend that full disclosure would reveal “highly commercially sensitive information” in a case where there is “ongoing competition” between Drake and Lamar.
“The ‘ongoing competition’ between Drake and Lamar ‘requires the exercise of additional caution with respect to [the] commercially sensitive information,’” UMG’s lawyers wrote, citing legal precedent.
The filings, obtained by MBW, can be read in full here, here, and here.
Background to the legal battle
The discovery battle stems from Drake’s defamation lawsuit against UMG filed in January 2025, which replaced an earlier petition against UMG and Spotify that he withdrew in the same month.
In his lawsuit, Drake alleges that UMG “decided to publish, promote, exploit and monetize allegations that it understood were not only false, but dangerous” in Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us,” which was released in May 2024 as part of a highly publicized rap feud between the two artists.
Both Drake and Lamar release their music through UMG, with Drake signed to Republic Records and Lamar to Interscope Records. Notably, Lamar himself is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
The discovery process in the case began in April after UMG unsuccessfully sought a stay of the discovery process.
UMG has previously dismissed Drake’s claims as “wild conspiracies” and argued that “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.’”Music Business Worldwide
