Nicki Minaj and her company, Pink Personality, are contesting a former manager’s request for $3,900 in discovery-related sanctions in an ongoing Los Angeles civil case. The immediate disagreement is not a ruling on the underlying assault allegations. It concerns whether Minaj’s side provided sufficient written answers during the evidence-exchange phase of the lawsuit, and whether Brandon Garrett can still pursue a motion seeking more.

Garrett sued Minaj and Pink Personality in January 2025, alleging assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. His complaint stems from an alleged backstage incident at Detroit’s Little Caesars Arena on April 21, 2024, during the Pink Friday 2 World Tour. Minaj has denied the allegations.

Judge Eric Harmon is scheduled to hear the discovery dispute in Los Angeles Superior Court on November 10.

What the present court fight is about

The parties are currently disputing discovery, the pretrial process in which litigants request information, documents and sworn answers that may bear on a case. Discovery is not the trial itself, and a dispute over responses does not decide whether the allegations in a complaint are true.

Minaj’s lawyers say that they answered six sets of written questions in July, met with Garrett’s attorneys in August and delivered additional answers in September. Their filing argues that Garrett should not be permitted to rely on motions seeking further responses after verified further responses were served in July.

A verified response generally means a written discovery response confirmed under oath or another formal declaration process. The distinction matters because discovery requests are intended to pin down the factual positions each side may later present. The supplied record does not lay out the contents of every request and answer, so it does not establish which responses, if any, the court will find adequate.

Minaj’s side also argues that Garrett did not challenge the July responses within the required deadline. That timing argument is central to its opposition: even if Garrett had objections to earlier answers, the defense position is that later, verified supplemental responses changed the procedural footing of the dispute and that the motion is now untimely.

Garrett’s $3,900 request is intended to recover legal expenses associated with bringing the discovery motion. Such a request is often described as sanctions, but in this context it is a procedural request for costs tied to alleged discovery shortcomings—not a criminal penalty and not a judgment on the underlying claims.

Why Garrett sought further answers

Garrett’s attorneys had previously contended that Minaj missed a February deadline and gave inadequate answers in March. They sought more factual detail supporting denials related to allegations that Garrett faced threats to his safety, suffered lost wages and experienced emotional harm.

Those categories are significant in a civil action because they relate both to the alleged events and to possible damages. Lost wages concern claimed income losses. Emotional harm refers to the alleged mental or emotional effects of the conduct at issue. Garrett has sought damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

The court’s narrower November task is expected to be procedural: determine whether further responses are warranted, whether the request was made on time and whether either side should bear costs from the discovery dispute. The supplied information does not indicate that Judge Harmon has ruled on any of those questions.

The allegations and Minaj’s denial

Garrett alleges that the conflict began after Minaj learned that he had asked another employee to pick up her prescriptions. Garrett has said he assigned that errand because he was helping Minaj change clothes for the performance.

He alleges that Minaj struck him in the face and on the wrist, causing his hat to fall off. Garrett has said that he locked himself in a bathroom afterward and later reported the incident to police.

Those are allegations made by Garrett in the civil matter, not established findings. Minaj denied the claims through attorney Judd Burstein, who characterized the lawsuit as completely false and frivolous when it emerged in January 2025.

The case therefore remains defined by competing positions: Garrett’s allegations of physical and emotional injury, and Minaj’s denial. The discovery argument may influence what information must be exchanged before later stages of the litigation, but it does not resolve that factual conflict.

A separate police and prosecutorial track

The allegations also prompted a police investigation. On January 6, 2025, Wayne County prosecutors declined a warrant request, citing insufficient evidence of a crime, while asking Detroit police to investigate further.

That development should be read carefully alongside the civil lawsuit. A prosecutor’s decision on a warrant request addresses whether the available evidence supports pursuing a criminal case at that stage. Garrett’s civil claims, meanwhile, continue in a different legal setting with different procedures. The supplied material does not state that the prosecutor’s decision ended the civil case, nor does it report a criminal charge against Minaj in connection with the allegations.

For readers following entertainment-industry disputes, the distinction is important. Civil suits can seek monetary damages and move through pleadings, discovery and potential trial. Criminal investigations center on whether law enforcement and prosecutors can support criminal charges. One track does not automatically dictate the outcome of the other.

What to watch at the November 10 hearing

The hearing could clarify several practical questions without deciding the lawsuit’s ultimate merits:

  • Whether Garrett’s challenge was timely: Minaj’s lawyers contend that the deadline to dispute the July verified responses passed.
  • Whether the additional answers are sufficient: Garrett’s earlier position was that Minaj’s responses lacked needed factual detail; Minaj’s position is that further verified answers have already addressed the requests.
  • Whether $3,900 in costs should be awarded: The judge may deny, grant or otherwise address the sanctions request based on the procedural record.
  • How the case proceeds through discovery: A ruling can establish what information must still be exchanged before the parties reach later pretrial steps.

No trial outcome is supplied, and no conclusion about liability should be drawn from the scheduled hearing alone. At this point, the November proceeding is a contest over the mechanics of litigation: responses, deadlines and legal costs.

The dispute also sits in the broader context of touring operations, where performers, managers and backstage staff may work under fast-moving conditions and with overlapping responsibilities. But the present filings do not provide a complete account of those responsibilities, the surrounding communications or the evidence each party may ultimately present. Those details may be explored as the civil case proceeds.

For another look at the live-entertainment world from an industry-development angle, see the paid live-entertainment fellowships created through Usher’s New Look and USC Thornton.

Until the court rules, the clearest point is limited: Minaj’s legal team is asking that Garrett’s bid for additional discovery and $3,900 in sanctions be rejected because it says supplemental verified answers were supplied and the challenge came too late. Garrett’s allegations remain pending, and Minaj continues to deny them.