LOS ANGELES (CN) — Lawyers for movie star Brad Pitt asked a Superior Court judge on Thursday to compel his ex-wife and fellow star Angelina Jolie to produce a trove of nondisclosure agreements she has signed in the past.
Superior Court Judge Lia Martin said she would likely agree to the order — with some limitations. For example, Martin may only force Jolie to reveal NDAs dating back to 2014, the year Jolie and Pitt were wed.
Martin did not make a formal ruling on Thursday but indicated she would do so shortly — perhaps even by the end of the day. If Jolie is ordered to produce the agreements, they will likely be kept under seal by a protective order and may also have the names of other parties blacked out.
The skirmish is just the latest in a long and costly legal battle between the former power couple.
The case has produced countless motions, complaints, cross-complaints, amended complaints and demurrers — all centered around Pitt and Jolie's French estate and vineyard in the south of France, known as Château Miraval.
The estate served as both their European retreat and as headquarters of their successful winemaking operation, Miraval, which specialized in rosé. The sprawling stretch of land also has a recording studio and a stone chapel, where the two were married in 2014.
Pitt and Jolie each owned 50% of Château Miraval. After they divorced, Jolie sought to sell her half to Pitt.
Then negotiations stalled. The sticking point, Jolie said, was Pitt's insistence that she sign an NDA preventing her from publicly speaking about any of Pitt's personal conduct leading up to their divorce. Among other things, Jolie could have been barred from discussing Pitt's behavior on a now-infamous private jet ride, on which he — according to Jolie — shook and choked one of their six children.
"To Jolie, Pitt’s demand for a new sweeping NDA was a culmination of years of denial and coverup and a stinging affirmation of his inability to appreciate how his conduct had so greatly damaged their family," Jolie wrote in a recent court filing. She called the NDA "controlling and punishing" and the demand to sign it "callous and mean-spirited."
Jolie broke off negotiations and instead sold her half of Miraval to the Stoli Group, the seller of Stolichnaya vodka owned by Russian-born billionaire Yuri Shefler.
Pitt sued Jolie in an effort to block or undo the sale and to maintain sole control over his French estate and winery, with which he had become particularly obsessed. He said the couple had an oral agreement not to sell their shares in Miraval to a third party.
Then, in another twist in the meandering case, Jolie countersued both Pitt and his business partner, accusing them of draining funds from Miraval and using the winery as Pitt's own "personal piggy bank." It was in court documents relating to this countersuit that Jolie accused Pitt of abuse aboard the private jet.
Pitt has argued that Jolie used his proposed NDA as a pretext for breaking off talks with him and selling to Shefler.
In a recent court filing, he claimed that "fewer than six months after the sale to Stoli, Jolie’s lawyer proposed an even broader, mutual nondisparagement clause to Pitt." He also said that "Jolie has signed or requested comparable NDAs from others."
As part of discovery, Pitt therefore requested that Jolie produce "all NDAs to which she is a party," as well as "draft or executed NDAs that Jolie asked a third party to enter into." Jolie agreed to produce all NDAs between her and Pitt but refused to turn over any others.
"Jolie has never contended that all NDAs are problematic," she wrote in a court filing. "The stark and obvious contrast between the NDA to which Jolie objected and the ones that Pitt is now demanding Jolie review and produce is that none of these other NDAs were covering up substantial physical and emotional abuse of Jolie and their children."
"Pitt’s requested documents have no relevance to this case," she went on, "and zero ability to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
Jolie has called Pitt's proposed NDA unconscionable. Judge Martin said the Jolie's past NDA's might help her determine what is or isn't a reasonable nondisclosure request.
The agreements, she said, would "let me see the defendants' dealings with others." Still, she added that "I'm hoping that at some point reasonable minds will prevail and they'll work it all out," referring to the prospect of a settlement.
Jolie's attorney, Paul Murphy, attempted to change the judge's mind in court on Thursday.
"Are the NDAs comparable?" he asked. "Is this a case about NDAs, or is it a case about this NDA?"
He called Pitt's request "overbroad, burdensome and oppressive." He also warned that if the judge did order production of Jolie's NDAs, his side would likely make similar requests of Pitt.
"If you set the table," Murphy said, "we'll play by those rules."
At the very least, Murphy said Martin should limit the order in a variety of ways. She could limit the time frame of the discovery request to 2014 to 2021, for example, or only compel production of "nondisparagement" agreements rather than all nondisclosures.
He said Martin should not force Jolie to produce drafts of agreements, calling this "a bridge way too far." Limiting the order, he said, was necessary in order to "keep this case from blowing up into lots of different sideshows."
John Berlinsky, Pitt's attorney, in turn argued against limiting the order. He that Jolie's draft NDAs could help explain why one would want such an agreement — and why Jolie in particular would want one.
"Drafts help us understand intent," Berlinsky said.
Follow @hillelaron
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
-
Megan Thee Stallion’s copyright win June 19, 2024