Angelina Jolie's war with ex Brad Pitt over $500M winery heats up ...
Angelina Jolie says she shouldn’t have to turn over all her past NDAs to her ex, Brad Pitt, in their epic war over their $500 million winery.
Jolie’s lawyers claim in newly filed court docs obtained by Page Six that a recent motion by Pitt asking to see Jolie’s NDAs with any third parties is “expensive,” “wasteful,” “unreasonable” — and even “abusive.”
Jolie, 48, has argued in court docs that Pitt, 60, asked her to sign an expansive NDA in their scuttled Miraval deal because he was trying to silence her from speaking about allegations he was abusive to Jolie and their family, including on a flight from France to California in 2016.
Jolie has alleged previously: “While Pitt’s history of physical abuse of Jolie started well before the family’s September 2016 plane trip from France to Los Angeles, this flight marked the first time he turned his physical abuse on the children as well. Jolie then immediately left him.”
The “Maleficent” star is also claiming in new court papers that turning over other NDAs she has signed would be an invasion of privacy for the other parties — presumably including movie studios, brands and employees — revealing “contracts that include Jolie’s compensation or compensation she paid to third parties.”
Jolie’s side has claimed Pitt wanted Jolie to sign an unfairly “onerous” and “expansive” NDA, “covering Pitt’s personal misconduct, whether related to Miraval or not,” in order for her to sell her stake to him.
The exes’ deal fell through — over the unfair NDA, she claims — and Jolie then sold her shares to a Stoli Group subsidiary. Pitt has opposed the Stoli deal and alleged she unfairly sold the stake out from under him.
Earlier this month, Pitt’s team filed documents in LA Superior Court stating Jolie should disclose other NDAs she has entered into with third parties, including her own personal staff. The “Fight Club” actor’s side has said these other NDAs will shed light on whether Jolie truly found Pitt’s non-disclosure agreement request to be “the deal-ender she subsequently alleged it to be.”
But in the new court papers, Jolie’s lawyers respond: “Pitt apparently intends to argue that, over the past two decades, Jolie had or at least considered other NDAs with other people and entities, about other matters not in any way connected with Pitt’s abuse. He says he wants to argue that since Jolie considered and/or entered other NDAs over her lengthy career, his proposed NDA covering his spousal and child abuse couldn’t possibly have been the reason the deal collapsed.”
Jolie’s lawyers further state: “To effectuate this plan, Pitt now demands that Jolie review every contract she has ever considered or entered over the last two decades to see if any contained any form of NDA (both non-disparagement and non-disclosure).”
Jolie’s side argues turning over such exhaustive documents would also reveal private info on others, violating their rights.
“By their nature, Pitt’s Requests seek to intrude on Jolie’s privacy,” says Jolie’s new filing. “The Requests seek contracts between Jolie (or any of her entities) and any other person or entity. Most, if not all,of these agreements will be employment-related contracts that include Jolie’s compensation or compensation she paid to third parties.”
The documents also argue, “These third parties have their own privacy rights, and Pitt is not giving them any notice whatsoever to allow them to protect their rights.”
The papers say that Pitt’s latest NDA request is “simply not relevant to this case.”
Jolie’s lawyers also say that, “Forcing Jolie to spend the time and expense of gathering and producing all of this documentation is expensive, wasteful, and unreasonable — and the latest manifestation of Pitt’sabusive conduct toward Jolie. The Court should not allow it.”
A hearing is taking place on May 16, we’ve reported. A full trial is not expected this year.
The Hollywood exes have been fighting over the vineyard they purchased in 2008 ever since Jolie filed for divorce in 2016. A legal war over the estate has been playing out in courts in California and Luxembourg.
Jolie’s team further states in their arguments that: “Pitt’s motion illustrates the harm and humiliation victims of domestic violence face in Court. Because Jolie dares to raise the issue as a defense in this case, Pitt seeks to dig up nearly two decades of contractual relationships to supposedly ‘impeach’ her reaction to Pitt’s attempt to cover up his abuse.”
The papers also state: “Pitt wants to argue that Jolie entered NDAs with others, so there was no harm in Pitt demanding an NDA to cover his abuse. But there is a fundamental and obvious difference: In none of those other NDAs was Pitt trying to silence abuse of his own family. The Court should not validate this dangerous argument. This case will be decided by evidence concerning Miraval and the dealings between Pitt and Jolie — not by Jolie’s dealings with third parties on topics having nothing to do with Miraval’s sale. Pitt’s motion should be denied.”
Jolie has said in legal filings that she and her family have never returned to the chateau since 2016, days before she filed for divorce. The duo — who wed in 2014 — share kids Maddox, Pax, Zahara, Shiloh and twins Vivienne and Knox.
Paul Murphy, an attorney for Angelina Jolie, told us, “For Pitt to equate common NDAs covering confidential information employees learn at work, with him attempting to cover up his history of abuse, is shameful. This case is not about NDAs in general, but is about power and privilege. All Angelina wanted was separation and health. He seems to always insist on a continuance of a fight. She deserves peace after all these years.”
Per documents previously obtained by Page Six in 2023, Pitt previously alleged his “vindictive” ex-wife sold her shares of Château Miraval in spite of him after he was granted joint custody of their six children, though the decision was later overturned.
A rep for Pitt did not comment.
A source familiar with the “Moneyball” star told us of Jolie’s most recent filing, “This is a basic business dispute over Miraval into which she has repeatedly injected personal matters that have nothing to do w
