Angelina Jolie could be ordered to hand over staff NDAs as judge indicates she may side with Brad Pitt in Miraval wine court battle

Details

Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00

Written by Daily mail

         Brad Pitt is poised to take a big win in court in his ongoing battle with ex Angelina Jolie after a judge said she would grant the actor’s request to force Jolie to turn over nondisclosure agreements she has entered into – including those signed by her staff.The pair continue to fight over her decision to sell her shares of the $500million business to a Russian businessman. Pitt maintains that they agreed, as part of their divorce, not to sell any shares in the company without the other's agreement. In court on Thursday, Pitt’s attorneys argued the NDAs would be ‘highly probative’. Jolie sold her shares in the French winery to a Russian billionaire who controls the Stoli Group.Judge Lia Martin said she was ‘inclined to’ grant Pitt’s motion, which would mean Jolie has to turn over all the NDAs she has entered into with various third parties since 2014 - the year the former Hollywood power couple were married. Judge Lia Martin said the NDAs might help her determine what is or isn't a reasonable non-disclosure request. ‘I don’t see this as a character question,’ Judge Martin said to attorneys on both sides in a Downtown Los Angeles court on Thursday. ‘There maybe agreements that [Jolie] entered into with people that may have terms similar or not. The court is not making any findings today about admissibility of the documents.’ The judge said she could render her final order as soon as Thursday afternoon.Jolie’s attorneys disagreed with the judge’s tentative ruling and said Pitt’s demands for the NDA’s is being weaponized against the actress.Paul Murphy, one of Jolie’s attorneys, said Pitt is seeking access to the NDAs as a tactic to hide ‘years of abuse’ the actor inflicted against his client and their six children.Jolie has made explosive claims that Pitt physically abused her outside of the 2016 flight when their children were present. Her attorneys said Pitt made Jolie sign an NDA as part of an ‘unconscionable’ attempt to control her and her interests in Miraval.
        In court documents, Jolie said their Miraval deal was scrapped after Pitt asked her to sign an NDA that barred her from publicly speaking out about the abuse allegations, including the September 2016 incident on a private jet where Pitt allegedly slapped one of their children and choked another.Five days after the flight Jolie filed for divorce, and in September 2021 she sold her stake in the French winery she co-owned with Pitt. 'She has gone to great lengths to try to shield their children from reliving the pain Pitt inflicted on the family that day,' Jolie's lawyers wrote in an affidavit obtained by DailyMail.com. 'But when Pitt filed this lawsuit seeking to reassert control over Jolie's financial life and compel her to rejoin her ex-husband as a frozen-out business partner, Pitt forced Jolie to publicly defend herself on these issues for the first time.'The years of abuse was the reason why Jolie refused to sell her shares of Miraval to Pitt and instead sold her stake to Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler in 2021, her attorneys have said in court filings.‘He wanted to cover up his conduct because he could not stomach what he is covering up,’ Murphy said in court on Thursday. ‘Mr. Pitt’s abuse, his cover-up and actions, gaslighting his children - that is what changed.’Murphy asked the judge to consider several factors if she approves Pitt’s request, including to limit the release of NDAs signed by Jolie from 2014 to 2021, and not agreements related to her companies.Murphy also argued Jolie should not be forced to turn over drafts of the NDAs because it would be 'a bridge way too far' and would keep the case from 'blowing up' into 'different sideshows.'Pitt’s attorney, John Berlinski, said they should be allowed to view Jolie’s NDAs related to all of her businesses since actors often use their company names when signing agreements.Berlinski also argued the NDAs would be relevant to the Miraval case since Jolie allegedly made others, including her staff, sign ‘gag orders’ to prevent them from talking about what they witnessed while they were employed at her home, including her treatment of Pitt and their children. ‘She was the one who weaponized the NDA and threatened to sue security guards simply if they testified,’ Berlinski said during Thursday’s hearing. ‘That’s significant.’

source : Daily mail