Drake Lawyers Claim Lucian Grainge Involved in Kendrick Lamar Diss
Drake Subpoenas UMG CEO Lucian Grainge in Kendrick Lamar diss Track Lawsuit
Table of Contents
Drake is escalating his legal battle with Global Music Group (UMG), filing motions to compel the label to release documents from CEO Lucian grainge, alleging his direct involvement in the marketing and promotion of Kendrick LamarS diss track, “Not Like Us.” The lawsuit centers around Drake’s claim that UMG deliberately sabotaged his song by prioritizing Lamar’s response, constituting defamation and breach of contract.
Drake Alleges Grainge’s Direct Involvement
Despite UMG’s assertions that Grainge “is not involved in record releases or marketing activities, even high-profile ones,” Drake’s legal team argues the CEO was personally involved in decisions surrounding the release of Lamar’s track. The motions filed on Tuesday request the judge to force UMG to “collect, review, and produce” relevant documents from Grainge’s files.
Drake’s lawyers contend that UMG’s initial stance of “no role” has shifted to “no meaningful involvement,” a distinction they see as significant. They argue that proving Grainge’s “actual malice” is crucial to the case, and access to his communications is essential. “UMG’s refusal to permit relevant discovery into its CEO’s files is unsupported by law and would prejudice plaintiff’s ability to test and prove his claims,” the motion states.A July letter from UMG’s legal team, denying access to Grainge’s documents, maintained he had no ”meaningful involvement” in the specific track’s release, suggesting any relevant facts would be “cumulative and duplicative” of communications from other UMG staff.
Seeking Evidence of Censorship and Label Competition
The second motion filed by Drake’s team broadens the scope of discovery, seeking documents related to UMG’s “ancient censorship” of artists. The argument posits that UMG possesses the authority to censor works containing defamatory statements and has previously exercised this right. This line of inquiry suggests Drake believes UMG intentionally allowed damaging claims about him to circulate.
Furthermore, Drake’s lawyers allege UMG fostered competition between its labels, Republic (Drake’s label) and Interscope (Lamar’s label), creating an incentive to defame Drake.The motion requests financial documents and Lamar’s unredacted record contract to support this claim, suggesting a financial motivation for UMG to favor Lamar’s track. Specifically, the claim is that “the incentive structure for executives at UMG’s labels motivated UMG to defame Drake.”
UMG’s Defense and Previous Filings
UMG has not yet commented on the newly filed motions.The company’s legal team has been contacted for comment by The Guardian.
Previously, UMG sought to have the case dismissed, arguing in March that Drake “lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated.” The label characterized diss tracks as a “popular and celebrated artform centred around outrageous insults,” suggesting that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would “severely chill” artistic expression.They maintain the dispute is a matter of competitive artistry, not defamation.
This case continues to unfold, raising questions about the power dynamics within the music industry and the legal boundaries of artistic expression.The outcome could have significant implications for how record labels manage artist disputes and the extent to which they can be held liable for content released by their artists.