Judge approves Drake's request to subpoena crucial witness in 'Universal Music Group' legal battle

The Toronto rapper request to subpoena Kojo Menne Asamoah in the UMG lawsuit has been approved.

Drake is suing Universal Music Group, claiming that the company artificially inflated the success of Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us"

A federal judge in Manhattan has permitted Drake's legal team to use alternative methods to serve a crucial third-party witness, following unsuccessful attempts at personal delivery, in the rapper's ongoing lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG).

In a memorandum opinion dated on Wednesday (August 6), Judge Jeannette A. Vargas approved the motion allowing the service of a subpoena on Kojo Menne Asamoah. Drake asserts that Asamoah is aware of UMG's purported attempts to manipulate streaming figures related to a recording the artist considers defamatory.

“Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Asamoah possesses knowledge relating to UMG’s use of covert tactics to promote the Defamatory Material,” the court wrote, “including because Plaintiff believes that Mr. Asamoah was involved in directing payments and/or financial incentives from UMG to third parties involved in online botting.” Drake’s legal team has listed Asamoah as a relevant witness in their initial disclosures.

Judge authorizes alternative service following $75K search

As stated in court documents, process servers tried eleven times to find Asamoah at different locations and times, but were unsuccessful. Additionally, Drake's team engaged a private investigative firm to assist in the search. The filing mentioned that "despite several days of surveillance, the investigative firm was unable to personally identify Mr. Asamoah," and noted that these efforts incurred "over $75,000 in costs."

The court ultimately found alternative service to be warranted. The judge approved the subpoena to be mailed and posted "to the door at the five physical addresses mentioned in Plaintiff’s memorandum of law," and sent to "the three email addresses listed in Plaintiff’s memorandum of law." The decision referenced similar cases in the district where alternative service was allowed when it was "reasonably calculated under the circumstances to provide [the recipient] with both notice and an opportunity to present objections."

Drake, in his revised complaint, charges UMG with defamation and deceptive business practices, claiming the label secretly financed campaigns to promote the recording's distribution. UMG has yet to publicly address the alternative service ruling. The larger claims are still being evaluated, with both parties standing firm. As the case progresses, the court's decision indicates a change in procedural momentum for the rapper. However, it is yet to be determined if the serious allegations will be substantiated.