Angelina Jolie has been dealt another legal blow in her bitter battle with Brad Pitt over her Chateau Miraval property, DailyMail.com can reveal.
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has ordered the Tomb Raider actress, 48, to produce all confidentiality agreements she signed with a third party over an eight-year period, from 2014 to 2022.
Documents detailing the judge’s decision were made public as part of the ongoing ‘War of the Roses’, with the A-list couple locked in a bitter battle over their rights to sell their vineyard and home in France.
Jolie sold her $62 million stake to Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler in 2021, which Pitt said went against their agreement to offer the other the right of first refusal.
NDAs have become a key battleground in the Chateau Miraval dispute after Jolie claimed she backed out of her deal because Pitt, 60, asked her to sign one as part of their business deal.
Angelina Jolie must now hand over all confidentiality agreements she entered into with a third party from 2014 to 2022, new filings in the ongoing legal battle between her and Brad Pitt over their Miraval winery.
Brad Pitt had demanded his ex-wife hand over documents from previous agreements she had entered into with third parties after she claimed he had backed out of the deal due to its “cruel” NDA clause. He is pictured at the castle with his business partner Marc Perrin.
She claims it was an “unconscionable” attempt by her ex-partner to “control” her after their separation, and her lawyers asked the Los Angeles Superior Court to cancel the sale due to their agreement not to sell to a third party.
But Pitts’ lawyers have argued that Jolie’s objection to the NDA was really just a cover story she made up to “rationalize” her betrayal of Pitt by deciding to sell her stake behind his back.
The Fight Club star’s lawyers also claim that Jolie herself “weaponized” the NDAs and asked Pitt to sign a broader NDA just six months later as part of their divorce settlement talks.
Pitt’s legal team asked him in previous filings to clarify confidentiality agreements he entered into with third parties, including staff.
In a ruling made public Wednesday, Judge Lia Martin dismissed Jolie’s objections that her own confidentiality agreements were “not relevant,” and agreed with the motion filed by Pitt’s team.
He ordered the actress to submit all confidentiality agreements that she proposed, or that others proposed to her, regardless of whether they were finalized or agreed upon.
The ruling also requires Jolie to submit confidentiality agreements entered into by the companies she controls, as well as documents reflecting the reasons why she or her companies requested the agreements within 60 days.
Paul Murphy, one of Jolie’s lawyers, told DailyMail.com that the judge’s order also opens the window for the actress to demand documents related to Pitt’s alleged abuse.
“Ordinary confidentiality agreements simply are not comparable to Mr. Pitt’s last-second demand to try to cover up his personal misconduct,” Murphy said. “We are more than happy to hand them over and are pleased that the Court has recognized that the only potential relevance is the unscrupulousness of Mr Pitt’s conduct, a key issue now confirmed in this case.”
He continued: “The judge’s ruling completely opens the door to the discovery of all issues related to Pitt’s abuse.” We welcome that transparency in discovery responses from all parties, including Mr. Pitt’s.
“Angelina looks forward to the end of this litigation with its false narratives that continue to harm the family and interfere with their ability to heal.”
A source close to Brad, however, said Jolie’s decision to use the NDA as a strategy “backfired spectacularly.”
‘His defense has been exposed like a house of cards, and he will now have to provide details of all the NDAs he demanded from third parties.
An aerial view of Chateau Miraval in Le Val, southeastern France, the winery and house that Brangelina bought for $27 million.
Pitt was shocked when his ex-wife sold half of their stunning Chateau Miraval estate without his consent to Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler in 2021.
‘There is no doubt that this is a big setback for her. “There is a long way to go, but in the context of the case so far, this is a hugely important and far-reaching ruling that will be problematic for her defence,” the source added.
It comes less than two weeks after Jolie was accused of trying to drive a wedge between her ex-husband and their six children following their separation, according to court documents filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.
In an explosive statement seen by DailyMail.com, a former bodyguard for the couple was informed by her own contractors that Jolie was pushing for her children to avoid Pitt when she had custody of them.
The southern French castle, where the couple married in 2014, became Pitt’s “passion” and one of the most respected rosé wine producers in the world.
Former British SAS soldier Tony Webb worked for the family for more than 20 years, starting in 2000, but claims Jolie fired him after two members of her security staff took Pitt’s side after the split.
According to documents filed by Pitt’s lawyers in May, Webb claims Jolie’s personal assistant told the two colleagues that she would “file a lawsuit” after it emerged they could present evidence in the couple’s custody battle. .
In court documents, seen by DailyMail.com, it is claimed that a colleague of Webb’s told him that he overheard Jolie “encouraging the children to avoid spending time with Pitt during custody visits.”
Her statement accuses Jolie of repeating her threat to sue the bodyguards in a follow-up email, and Pitt’s lawyers used the claims as part of their motion to force the actress to reveal her use of NDAs.
NDAs are not typically used to gag witnesses who come forward to testify in court proceedings, although despite the threats, Webb said at the hearing that his two colleagues testified under subpoena.
Her comments are part of the motion now won by Pitt’s team, where Jolie is called a “hypocrite” for claiming she wanted to use a confidentiality agreement in the sale of her French vineyard to “control” her, despite regularly gagging her own staff with similar contracts.
Pitt’s team maintains that Jolie is “inappropriately using confidentiality agreements.”
The ruling, which was made public Wednesday, also requires Jolie to produce confidentiality agreements signed by the companies she controls, as well as documents reflecting the reasons why she or her companies requested the agreements within 60 days. .
In a separate earlier legal filing, Pitt’s attorney, John Berlinski, argued that Webb’s evidence shows that Jolie has “weaponized” the NDAs in an attempt to keep the couple’s “family issues” secret.
He added: “What Jolie claims was so sacred to her that Pitt’s proposed confidentiality agreement caused her to breach her sales agreement with him.
“Jolie’s use of non-disclosure agreements to silence her security personnel and attempt to prevent them from truthfully testifying in court about what really happened behind closed doors bears a striking resemblance to Jolie’s (false) accusations in this case.” that Pitt improperly used a confidentiality agreement to “silence” his.
‘The only reason this motion is even before the Court is because of Jolie’s ploy to turn this business dispute into a sideshow on family court matters.
“In short, establishing that NDAs are a common feature of Jolie’s personal and professional life, and completely routine for her, goes directly to the credibility of her defense, regardless of the precise terms or subject matter of any particular NDA.” .
He went on to accuse Jolie of using the NDA proposal to “introduce into this case the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the dissolution of the couple’s marriage, claiming that the proposal generated an ’emotionally devastating’ reaction in her.”
Berlinski added that her timeline “doesn’t work,” claiming that Pitt’s suggested confidentiality agreement was provided after she “opened negotiations” with the Russian billionaire.
The arguments come after Pitt won several legal victories in the battle over the winery, including a key ruling in Luxembourg that returned him control of the award-winning vineyard pending further hearings.
In March, the Los Angeles Superior Court rejected allegations that her lawsuit was “frivolous, malicious and part of a problematic pattern.”
