Drake’s Lawyer Says It’s “Time to See What UMG Was So Desperately Trying to Hide” After Judge Clears Way for Discovery in Lawsuit

Drake just scored a legal win in his ongoing defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG). A New York judge ruled on Tuesday that his legal team can officially move forward with discovery

During a pre-trial conference in Manhattan, Judge Jeanette Vargas denied UMG’s request to delay the discovery process, clearing the way for Drake’s legal team to issue subpoenas, request documents, and potentially depose top executives. The decision marks a key step forward in a case focused on UMG’s alleged role in promoting Kendrick Lamar’s 2024 diss track “Not Like Us.”

The ruling marks a key step in the case, which centers on UMG’s alleged involvement in promoting Kendrick Lamar’s 2024 diss track “Not Like Us.” Drake claims the label helped push a song that damaged his reputation—while not backing his own music in return.

After the decision, Drake’s lead attorney Michael Gottlieb, a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, issued a  statement: “Now it’s time to see what UMG was so desperately trying to hide.”

Drake’s team is looking to review contracts between Lamar and UMG, as well as bonus and compensation details for Interscope CEO John Janick and other high-level executives. They believe that information could show how much UMG may have been involved in the release and promotion of the song.

Drake filed the lawsuit earlier this year, claiming UMG gave Lamar’s diss track full support, while ignoring his own releases—even though both artists are under the same parent company.

UMG responded strongly in March with a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the case has no real legal standing. The label called it an attempt by Drake to “save face” after a public rap battle he “provoked and lost.” UMG also pointed out that Drake has publicly opposed using rap lyrics in court before—suggesting the lawsuit goes against his own words.

UMG’s lawyers said “Not Like Us” is protected by free speech and should be seen as opinion, not a factual attack that qualifies as defamation.