'%20x='0'%20y='0'%20height='100%25'%20width='100%25'%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20xlink%3Ahref=''%3E%3C/image%3E%3C/svg%3E)
The legal tussle between rapper Aubrey Drake Graham and Universal Music Group (UMG) is now at a crossroad. Drake had sued the label for defamation promoted through Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us.
Last week, UMG filed a request to postpone a scheduled pretrial conference. However, Drake's attorney sent a letter to the court on February 24, 2025, criticizing UMG’s request to halt the conference.
Attorney Michael J. Gottlieb submitted a four-page document, calling out the label’s legal team for repeatedly ignoring his attempts to schedule a conference. He also claimed that UMG had been aware of the legal issues involving the rapper since July 2024, giving them plenty of time to prepare.
Gottlieb urged the court to reject UMG’s request for a delay and insisted they stick to the original schedule. He argued that the label was intentionally stalling to bypass court procedures. As seen in a copy of the letter posted on Instagram by “Akademiks TV,” the argument reads:
“UMG is attempting to circumvent the Rules (as well as the local rules) by obtaining a stay of discovery without actually moving for one. UMG's counsel has disclosed to Plaintiff's counsel that UMG intends to file a motion to dismiss, and that UMG may well seek an extension of its deadline to make that filing (though UMG has not actually committed to either).”
Drake’s lawyer noted that the court should decline UMG's stay request, as the request is allegedly a measure to explore its dismissal motion. Moreover, Gottlieb has argued that UMG has neither moved to dismiss nor moved for a stay of discovery; hence, the stay order is inappropriate.
Gottlieb alleged that UMG promoted defamatory content against Drake through the Super Bowl 2025 halftime performance
Drake’s lawyer argued in his letter that UMG’s request for a delay should be denied because it was an improper attempt to pause the legal process without filing a formal request. He insisted that the court proceed with the pretrial conference as scheduled and that UMG follow the established legal procedures.
Gottlieb also dismissed UMG’s claim that the conference was premature due to issues with the complaint, arguing that even if UMG planned to file a motion to dismiss, that alone did not justify a delay.
He pointed out that legal rules do not automatically pause discovery while a motion to dismiss is pending. As per the letter, courts typically grant such delays only under specific circumstances, such as when a claim is weak, discovery is excessively burdensome, or a delay would not harm the opposing party.
According to Drake’s lawyer, UMG failed to meet these requirements. He argued that the complaint provided strong evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claims and that UMG had not even discussed what type of discovery would be needed.
Additionally, he claimed that delaying discovery would cause harm to the plaintiff, as UMG allegedly continued spreading defamatory content, including during the 2025 Super Bowl halftime show, which reached millions of viewers.
He also raised concerns that a delay could result in the loss of key electronic evidence, especially from platforms such as texts, social media, and temporary messaging apps that do not automatically preserve messages.
Your perspective matters!
Start the conversation
