Megan Thee Stallion’s legal team is asking a federal judge not to let blogger Milagro Gramz pause payment on a $75,000 defamation judgment without posting a bond for the full amount.

According to documents obtained by Complex, Megan’s attorneys filed a response on Tuesday opposing Gramz’s request to delay payment while she appeals the judgment. If the court does grant a stay, Megan’s team argues that Gramz should be required to post a supersedeas bond equal to the judgment, plus anticipated interest and costs.

The dispute is part of a larger case Megan filed against Milagro Gramz, whose real name is Milagro Elizabeth Cooper, after accusing the blogger of spreading false and harmful claims about her online. The lawsuit was connected to the public fallout from the 2020 shooting involving Tory Lanez, who was convicted of shooting Megan and later sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Megan’s complaint accused Gramz of acting as a “mouthpiece” for Lanez and using her online platform to amplify claims that Megan had lied about the shooting. The case also involved allegations that Gramz directed her audience toward a deepfake pornographic video of Megan, which became a major part of the lawsuit.

A jury later found Gramz liable in connection with Megan’s claims, including defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and promotion of an altered sexual depiction. Megan was ultimately awarded $75,000 after Chief U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga reinstated the jury’s defamation verdict and entered a new amended final judgment on May 29.

Now, Gramz is trying to avoid paying the judgment immediately while she appeals the ruling.

In her request to pause payment, Gramz said she does not have the financial resources to immediately satisfy the judgment or post the full bond amount. She described herself as a “self-employed media commentator, researcher, and content creator” whose income comes from subscriptions, platform monetization, audience support, and other revenue streams that fluctuate month to month.

“I do not possess substantial liquid assets and do not have the financial resources necessary to immediately satisfy the judgment or post a full supersedeas bond,” Gramz wrote, adding that she supports a household with two minor children.

Megan’s team, however, argued that financial hardship should not excuse Gramz from meeting the legal standard required to delay payment.

“The same Defendant who showed no hesitation when she broadcast that Plaintiff was a liar, directed her audience to a deep-fake pornographic video of Plaintiff, and threatened to run Plaintiff over with a car, now pleads for the Court’s solicitude so that she may avoid the consequences of a jury’s verdict and this Court’s judgment,” the filing stated.

The response continued, “Sympathy cannot displace the governing legal standard. Defendant’s Motion should be denied in its entirety, and if any stay is to issue, it should be conditioned upon a full supersedeas bond in the amount of the judgment plus anticipated interest and costs.”

For Megan, the latest filing is not just about the money. Her legal team is framing the bond request as a matter of accountability after a jury found that Gramz’s online conduct caused harm. For Gramz, the issue is whether she should be forced to pay before her appeal is heard.