Megan Thee Stallion has asked a New Jersey court to compel DJ Akademiks to testify in her ongoing defamation suit against Milagro Gramz, a YouTuber she says has helped orchestrate a years-long smear campaign against her on behalf of Tory Lanez. The Florida case, filed in 2024, accuses Gramz of coordinating with Daystar Peterson, the Canadian rapper better known as Tory Lanez, who is serving a 10-year prison sentence for the 2020 shooting in Los Angeles. Gramz, whose real name is Milagro Cooper, has been accused of being paid to post misinformation about Megan Thee Stallion and to rally online support against her as part of a broader campaign tied to Lanez.
The core dispute centers a sealed DNA-report from tests on the weapon used in the 2020 incident. Megan seeks to uncover who provided Akademiks with information about the DNA results and how that information was obtained. In deposition testimony on August 22, Akademiks answered limited questions, invoking shield laws that protect journalists’ sources and refusing to disclose substantive details. In a court filing dated September 16, Megan asked a New Jersey court to compel Akademiks to testify about how the gun-DNA information reached him, and who leaked or supplied the sealed report to him and Gramz.
Gramz’s Florida filing says the pair used the 2022 DNA report to amplify a narrative opposing Megan and to influence public perception. Megan’s lawyers contend that the report’s leak, and the subsequent online campaigns, were orchestrated with the aim of undermining her reputation and safety in the wake of the high-profile case surrounding Lanez. The suit describes Gramz as having posted material that Megan says was designed to intimidate and mislead audiences about her allegations and the shooter’s identity.
The involved parties have not publicly commented on the latest procedural move. Akademiks, Gramz, and representatives for Lanez did not respond to requests for comment.
The deposition dispute unfolds against the backdrop of Lanez’s ongoing prison sentence and Megan Thee Stallion’s broader legal and public-relations battles amid a high-profile chorus of bloggers, influencers, and fans who have weighed in on the case since 2020. While the Florida defamation suit targets Gramz’s conduct and the broader online ecosystem that Megan says enabled a smear campaign, the request to compel Akademiks’ testimony signals a broader effort to map the sources and channels behind the dissemination of the sealed DNA information.
The case remains active as litigation over discovery rights and witness testimony continues. Megan Thee Stallion is seeking clarity on the origins of the DNA leak and the extent of collaboration among individuals connected to Lanez’s camp. The court timeline for resolution of the compelled-testimony motion has not been set, and the parties have not disclosed additional evidence beyond what has already been filed in court.
As the legal action proceeds, Megan Thee Stallion aims to establish a direct link between the sealed DNA report and the online defamation campaign she says Gramz coordinated on behalf of Lanez. The investigation into sources and access to the DNA results could shape the scope of discovery in the Florida case and potentially influence subsequent rulings regarding admissibility and credibility of statements circulated about Megan Thee Stallion in the years since the shooting.
In any event, the dispute underscores the evolving dynamics of how digital influencers and online platforms are implicated in defamation cases tied to high-profile criminal incidents. The case continues to unfold as legal teams seek to balance shield-law protections with the need to uncover who supplied or leaked sensitive material used to shape public perception around a high-stakes, ongoing controversy.
Milagro Gramz image included here is part of ongoing coverage of the case, which has drawn attention from readers across entertainment and legal news outlets. The parties involved have not publicly elaborated on the latest procedural steps, but the court in New Jersey is expected to determine whether Akademiks can be compelled to testify and, if so, under what conditions and scope.
