Angelina Jolie must hand over all non-disclosure agreements signed with third parties from 2014-2022 following claims about Brad Pitt’s gag order.

Angelina Jolie must hand over all non-disclosure agreements signed with third parties from 2014-2022 following claims about Brad Pitt’s gag order.

Angelina Jolie has been hit with 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 a judge in LA Superior Court to produce every NDA agreement that 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 stuck in an acrimonious battle over her rights to sell their French vineyard and home.

Jolie sold her $62million stake to Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler in 2021, which Pitt argues went against their agreement to offer the other the right of first refusal.

NDA’s have become a key battleground in the dispute over Chateau Miraval after Jolie claims she backed out of their agreement because Pitt, 60, asked her to sign a one as part of their business deal.

Angelina Jolie must hand over all non-disclosure agreements signed with third parties from 2014-2022 following claims about Brad Pitt’s gag order.

Angelina Jolie is now required to turn over all NDA documents she entered with a third party from 201

Brad Pitt is now demanding ex-wife Angelina Jolie turn over NDA documents for previous agreements she's entered with third parties, in the latest motion in their ongoing legal battle over their Miraval winery. He is pictured at the chateau with business partner Marc Perrin

Brad Pitt is now demanding ex-wife Angelina Jolie turn over NDA documents for previous agreements she’s entered with third parties, in the latest motion in their ongoing legal battle over their Miraval winery. He is pictured at the chateau with business partner Marc Perrin

She claims that it was an ‘unconscionable’ attempt by her ex-partner to ‘control her’ after their split, with his lawyers asking LA Superior Court to unwind the sale because of their agreement to not sell to a third party.

But Pitts attorneys have argued that Jolie’s NDA objection was really just a cover story which she cooked-up to ‘rationalize’ her betrayal of Pitt by deciding to sell her stake behind his back.

The Fight Club stars attorneys also claim that Jolie herself ‘weaponized’ NDAs, and asked for Pitt to sign a broader NDA just six months later as part of their divorce settlement talks.

Pitt’s legal team asked in previous filings that she come clean about NDAs she entered into with third parties including staff.

In a ruling made public on Wednesday, Judge Lia Martin dismissed Jolie’s objections that her own NDAs had ‘no relevance’, agreeing with the motion filed by Pitt’s team.

She ordered the actress to produce all NDAs she proposed, or that were proposed to her by others, regardless of whether they were finalized or agreed.

The ruling also obliges Jolie to produce NDAs entered into by companies she controls, as well as documents reflecting the reasons that she or her companies asked for the agreements within 60 days.

A source close to Brad said: ‘Angelina choose to make NDAs a battleground in this case, and now her strategy appears has backfired spectacularly.

‘Her defense has been exposed as a house of cards, and she will now have to provide details of all the NDAs she demanded of third parties.

An aerial view of Chateau Miraval in Le Val, southeastern France, the winery and home that Brangelina bought for $27million

An aerial view of Chateau Miraval in Le Val, southeastern France, the winery and home that Brangelina bought for $27million

Pitt was shocked when his ex-wife sold her half of their stunning Chateau Miraval estate without his agreement to Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler in 2021

The couple had initially agreed to give each other first refusal if either of them ever decided to sell their share

Pitt was shocked when his ex-wife sold her half of their stunning Chateau Miraval estate without his agreement to Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler in 2021

‘There is no question that this is a huge setback for her,’ the source added. 

It comes less than two weeks after Jolie was accused of trying to drive a wedge between her estranged husband and their six kids in the aftermath of their split, according to court filings lodged at LA Superior Court.

In an explosive declaration seen by DailyMail.com, a former bodyguard for the couple was informed by his own contractors that Jolie was pushing for her children to avoid Pitt when she had custody of them.

The South of France chateau, where the couple wed in 2014, became Pitt's 'passion' and one of the world's most highly-regarded producers of rosé wine

The South of France chateau, where the couple wed in 2014, became Pitt’s ‘passion’ and one of the world’s most highly-regarded producers of rosé wine

Former British SAS solider Tony Webb worked for the family for more than 20 years, starting in 2000, but claims that Jolie fired him after two of his security personnel sided with Pitt after the split.

According to documents lodged by Pitt’s lawyers in May, Webb claims that the two colleagues were told by Jolie’s personal assistant that she ‘would sue’ after it emerged that they might give evidence in the couple’s custody battle.

Documents submitted to the court, seen by DailyMail.com, state Webb’s colleague told him he overheard Jolie ‘encouraging the children to avoid spending time with Pitt during custody visits.’

His declaration accuses Jolie 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 reveal her use of NDA’s.

NDAs are not typically used to gag witnesses coming forward to testify in court proceedings, though despite the threats Webb told the hearing that both his colleagues testified under subpoena.

His comments make up part of the motion Pitt’s team has now won, where Jolie is called a ‘hypocrite’ for claiming he wanted to use an NDA in the sale of their French vineyard to ‘control’ her – despite regularly gagging her own staff with similar contracts.

Pitt’s team argues that Jolie is ‘using NDA’s in an ‘improper manner’.

85209611 13448109 image a 9 1716394051031

85209613 13448109 image a 10 1716394063683

In a separate previous legal filing, Pitt’s attorney John Berlinski argued that Webb’s evidence shows that Jolie has ‘weaponized’ NDAs in a bid to keep the couple’s ‘family issues’ under wraps.

He added: ‘The very thing that 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 NDAs to silence her security detail and attempt to prevent them from testifying truthfully in court about what actually happened behind closed doors bears a striking resemblance to Jolie’s (false) allegations in this case that Pitt improperly used an NDA 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 a sideshow about family court matters.

‘In short, establishing that NDAs are a commonplace feature of Jolie’s personal and professional life, and entirely routine for her, goes directly to the credibility of her defense— regardless of the precise terms or subject matter of any one particular NDA.’

He went on to accuse Jolie of using the NDA proposal to ‘introduce into this case the unfortunate circumstances related to the dissolution of the couple’s marriage, claiming that the proposal engendered an ’emotionally devastating’ reaction in her.’

Berlinski added that her timeline ‘does not work’, claiming that the confidentiality agreement suggested by Pitt was provided after she ‘opened negotiations’ with the Russian billionaire.

The arguments come after Pitt has landed several legal victories in the battle for the winery including a key judgement in Luxembourg which handed him back control of the award-winning vineyard pending further hearings.

In March, LA Superior court rejected the allegations that his suit was ‘frivolous, malicious, and part of a problematic pattern.’

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *