In the latest twist of an already headline-dominating legal battle, both Drake and Universal Music Group (UMG) have jointly requested that a federal court impose a protective order over documents and information exchanged during the discovery phase of their high-profile lawsuit.
The proposed order was brought to wider public attention after the account @OVODocket, a popular “X” (formerly Twitter) legal commentary page that tracks developments in Drake-related litigation, shared a full copy of the joint letter from attorneys representing both sides. While it’s unclear whether the account has any official ties to Drake’s OVO brand, it has recently served as a conduit for ongoing legal updates tied to the rapper.
The motion comes just days after UMG filed a new attempt to dismiss Drake’s explosive defamation suit, and the protective order now sits in the hands of Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the Southern District of New York for review.
Hold up, let’s dive into protective orders.
The Protective Order: What It means and why It matters …
At its core, a protective order in the discovery phase of a lawsuit is a legal safeguard. It is used to prevent sensitive or confidential information—such as private contracts, business strategies, or proprietary relationships—from being made public or misused during litigation. It ensures that discovery, which is the formal exchange of evidence between parties, doesn’t become a weapon for embarrassment, harassment, or competitive harm.
This type of order allows parties to limit who can view certain materials—sometimes labeling them “attorneys’ eyes only,” which means that only the attorneys (not even the clients themselves) can access these documents.
Back to the protective order as it pertains to the case …
Okay, so in this complex case, Drake and UMG have agreed that the lawsuit will likely require the disclosure of extremely sensitive business records, especially those concerning third parties not directly involved in the litigation.
Get this, to streamline the process and minimize the need to justify confidentiality document-by-document, both sides are asking for broader protections.
Here’s the protective order joint letter and legal filing (see google drive link via X post) as posted from @OVODocket’s “X” Account.
Below is the language from the letter so you can super clearly:
“Pursuant to Rule 5(N) of the Court’s Individual Rules, the Parties submit this letter in support of the jointly filed proposed protective order to govern discovery in the above-captioned case, attached as Exhibit 1. Pursuant to the Court’s Individual Rules, the proposed protective order conforms as closely as possible to the Court’s Model Protective Order. The Parties have proposed certain, limited changes to the provision regarding the use of the attorneys’ eyes only designation. Attached to this letter as Exhibit 2 is a blackline showing the changes to the Court’s Model Protective Order. The reason for this alteration is that the Parties agree this case is likely to involve the production of certain categories of highly confidential or proprietary business information, specifically, previously undisclosed contracts and information regarding business relationships with non-parties to this litigation, the disclosure of which would be highly likely to cause significant harm to Defendant UMG Recordings, Inc. or Plaintiff Aubrey Drake Graham. The Parties submit that discovery will be more efficient if the Parties have the ability to designate these limited categories of documents as attorneys’ eyes only without needing to provide notice and justification on a document by document basis. With respect to all other categories of documents that the Parties wish to designate as attorneys’ eyes only, the Parties will follow the standard procedures set forth in this Court’s template.”
Decoding the legal language:
1. Both parties foresee that highly sensitive documents will surface. These include contracts and business details with people or entities who are not directly involved in the lawsuit.
2. The parties want efficiency. Rather than explaining, case-by-case, why a document should be protected, they’re asking to pre-classify certain categories as confidential or “attorneys’ eyes only.”
3. They’re seeking limited changes to the court’s standard template. The request isn’t to overhaul the court’s model, but to make it fit the unique needs of this high-profile case.
4. They’re trying to prevent collateral harm. If any of these documents leaked or were made public, the damage could extend beyond Drake and UMG—to other artists, companies, and brands.
Whew, that was interesting. If you ask us, not too hard to comprehend if you’re not a legal eagle.
Now that we got you up to speed, let’s remind ya’ll what Drake is actually alleging …
At the center of Drake’s suit is the claim that UMG played a direct or indirect role in the release and amplification of Kendrick Lamar’s track “Not Like Us,” which Drake argues defamed him. His complaint includes three central claims: defamation, second-degree harassment, and a violation of New York’s business law against deceptive practices.
The defamation claim argues that the lyrics in “Not Like Us” falsely paint him in a deeply damaging light. The harassment charge alleges the track includes “specific and unequivocal threats of violence” that have caused Drake to fear for his personal safety. Finally, his deceptive practices claim accuses UMG of leveraging unfair promotional tactics—like bots and pay-for-play—to inflate the track’s reach and impact in what Drake claims was a targeted campaign.
Okay, so what’s next?
Judge Vargas will now consider the motion. If granted, the protective order will act as a legal boundary, keeping private the inner workings of the music industry’s most powerful players—at least for now.
But the story is far from over. UMG’s motion to dismiss still hangs in the balance. If denied, discovery will move forward under the shadow of these strict confidentiality rules. If granted, Drake’s legal offensive may be derailed before it ever reaches a jury.
Until then, the war of words—and paperwork—continues to play out both in the courtroom and on socials. Don’t trip it, we got you covered on all tings Drake v. UMG.