Angelina Jolie is ordered to turn over every NDA she signed with a third party from 2014 to 2022 after she claimed she walked out of Miraval sale due to Brad Pitt’s ‘cruel’ gag order
Angelina Jolie has suffered another legal blow in her bitter battle with Brad Pitt over their Chateau Miraval estate, DailyMail.com can reveal.
The Tomb Raider actress, 48, has been ordered by an LA Superior Court judge to produce every NDA agreement 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 her rights to sell their French vineyard and home.
Jolie sold her $62 million stake to Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler in 2021, which Pitt said violated their agreement to offer the other the right of first refusal.
NDAs have become a key battleground in the Chateau Miraval dispute after Jolie claims she backed out of their agreement because Pitt, 60, asked her to sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of their business deal.
Angelina Jolie must now hand over all non-disclosure agreements she entered into with a third party between 2014 and 2022, new filings in her and Brad Pitt’s ongoing legal battle over their Miraval winery
Brad Pitt had demanded his ex-wife hand over documents for previous agreements she entered into with third parties after claiming she backed out of the deal due to his ‘cruel’ NDA clause. He is pictured in the castle with business partner Marc Perrin
She claims it was an ‘unconscionable’ attempt by her ex-partner to ‘control her’ after their divorce, with his lawyers asking LA Superior Court to overturn the sale due to their agreement not to sell to a third party .
But Pitts’ lawyers have argued that Jolie’s NDA objection was actually just a cover story she concocted to “rationalize” her betrayal of Pitt by deciding to sell her stake behind his back.
Fight Club’s lawyers also claim that Jolie “weaponized” NDAs herself, asking Pitt to sign a broader NDA just six months later as part of their divorce talks.
Pitt’s legal team asked in previous filings whether she would be forthcoming about NDAs she had entered into with third parties, including staff.
In a ruling made public Wednesday, Judge Lia Martin rejected Jolie’s objections that her own nondisclosure agreements had “no relevance” and agreed to the motion filed by Pitt’s team.
She instructed the actress to draft all non-disclosure agreements that she proposed or that were suggested to her by others, regardless of whether they were completed or not.
The ruling also requires Jolie to produce non-disclosure agreements entered into by companies she controls, as well as documents reflecting the reasons why she or her companies requested the agreements within 60 days.
A source close to Brad said: “Angelina has chosen to make NDAs a battleground in this case, and now her strategy appears to have backfired spectacularly.
‘Her defense has been exposed as a house of cards and she will now have to provide details of all the non-disclosure agreements she has 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 her half of their beautiful Chateau Miraval estate to Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler without his consent in 2021
“There’s no doubt this is a huge setback for her,” the source added.
It comes less than two weeks after Jolie was accused of driving a wedge between her estranged husband and their six children in the wake of their divorce, according to court papers filed in LA Superior Court.
In an explosive statement seen by DailyMail.com, a former bodyguard for the couple was informed by his own contractors that Jolie pushed her children to avoid Pitt while she had custody of them.
The southern French chateau, where the couple married in 2014, became Pitt’s ‘passion’ and one of the world’s most highly regarded producers of rosé wine
Former British SAS soldier Tony Webb worked for the family for more than 20 years from 2000, but claims Jolie fired him after two of his security staff sided with Pitt after the split.
According to documents filed by Pitt’s lawyers in May, Webb claims that the two colleagues were told by Jolie’s personal assistant that she would “file a lawsuit” after it emerged that they could testify in the couple’s custody battle.
Documents filed with the court, seen by DailyMail.com, show that Webb’s colleague told him he heard Jolie “encouraged the children not to spend time with Pitt during custody visits.”
In his statement, Jolie is accused of repeating her threat to sue the bodyguards in a follow-up email, with Pitt’s lawyers using the claims as part of their motion to force the actress to disclose her use of non-disclosure agreements.
NDAs are not typically used to silence witnesses who come forward to testify in legal proceedings, although despite the threats, Webb told the hearing that both of his colleagues have testified under subpoena.
His comments are part of the motion that Pitt’s team has now won, calling Jolie a ‘hypocrite’ for claiming he wanted to use a non-disclosure agreement on the sale of their French vineyard to ‘control’ her – despite she regularly silenced her own staff with similar contracts.
Pitt’s team says Jolie is using NDAs in an “inappropriate manner.”
The ruling – which was made public on Wednesday – also requires Jolie to produce non-disclosure agreements entered into by 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 Jolie “weaponized” nondisclosure agreements in an effort to keep the couple’s “family issues” secret.
He added: “The very thing Jolie claims was so sacred to her, that Pitt’s proposed NDA caused her to renege on her deal to sell to him.
“Jolie’s use of non-disclosure agreements to silence her security personnel and attempt to prevent them from testifying truthfully in court about what actually happened behind closed doors bears a striking similarity to Jolie’s (false) accusations in this case that Pitt inappropriately used a nondisclosure agreement to “silence” her.
“The only reason this motion is even before the Court is because of Jolie’s ploy to turn this business dispute into an afterthought on family law matters.
“In short, the finding that NDAs are an everyday feature of Jolie’s personal and professional life, and entirely routine for her, has a direct bearing on the credibility of her defense – regardless of the precise terms or subject matter of any particular NDA.”
He then accused 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 triggered an “emotionally devastating” response in her. ‘
Berlinski added that her timeline “doesn’t work” and claimed that Pitt’s proposed confidentiality agreement was provided after she “opened negotiations” with the Russian billionaire.
The arguments come after Pitt secured several legal victories in the battle for the winery, including a major judgment in Luxembourg, which saw him regain control of the award-winning vineyard pending further hearings.
In March, the LA Supreme Court rejected allegations that his lawsuit was “frivolous, malicious and part of a problematic pattern.”