Brad Pitt has launched a legal salvo to force Angelia Jolie to reveal just how many gagging orders agreements she has asked staffers to sign — after she accused him of trying to use a draconian agreement to “control” her.
The Oscar winners are mired in a years-long battle over their divorce, custody of their kids and their winery, Château Miraval.
Earlier this week, Jolie made an explosive claim that Pitt had physically abused her more than the once that she had previously alleged, on a private flight in 2016, claiming there were other instances before that.
She also alleged that Pitt had asked her to sign an NDA (a non-disclosure agreement) as part of an “unconscionable” attempt to “control” her during the negotiations of the sale of Miraval.
It was because of this, she said, that she refused to sell her share of the estate to Pitt, and left her ex furious by instead selling her stake in the vineyard to Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler in 2021.
Explore More
Aoki Lee Simmons, 21, kisses Serafina co-founder Vittorio Assaf, 65, on romantic trip to St. Barts
Sacha Baron Cohen and wife Isla Fisher are divorcing after nearly 14 years of marriage
Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ son accused of sexual assault amid rapper's sex-trafficking probe
On Friday, lawyers for Pitt retaliated by filing a motion asking Jolie to disclose other NDAs she entered into with third parties – including her own personal staff.
His lawyer John Berlinski said in the legal papers, “If Jolie conditioned her continued employment of an individual on that individual’s agreement to an NDA covering what they witnessed in her home — including her treatment of her children and Pitt — that would be highly probative of whether she truly believed the provision requested by Pitt was an ‘unconscionable gag order.’
“The same is true with respect to any NDA between Jolie and any third party with whom she is in a relationship or who has assisted with the care of the couple’s children.
“To the extent that Jolie requested this third party’s silence about her family or homelife, particularly in a circumstance where there was no business justification, it would speak volumes about whether Jolie actually viewed Pitt’s requested NDA, which was linked to the Miraval business, as the deal-ender she subsequently alleged it to be.”
The court was shown an April 2021 letter from Jolie’s legal team which at the time included her own draft non-disparagement agreement, alongside a further letter from her US divorce lawyers six months after she pulled out of the sale of Miraval, which allegedly also suggested an even broader NDA as part of her divorce from Pitt.
Paul Murphy, Jolie’s attorney, told Page Six, “For Pitt to equate common NDAs covering confidential information employees learn at work, with him attempting to cover up his history of abuse, is frankly, shameful.
“All she wanted was separation and health. She deserves peace after all these years.”
We have reached out for comment to Pitt.
The latest chess move comes a day after Jolie claimed in legal filings that Pitt was abusive towards her prior to the now-infamous 2016 plane incident that led her to filing for divorce.
As part of the former couple’s ongoing fight over Miraval, on April 4, the actress’s legal team filed a motion seeking to release communications they say would prove Pitt, 60, would not let Jolie, 48, sell her share of the winery to him unless she agreed to a “more onerous” and “expansive” NDA.
Within the new filing, Jolie’s lawyers claimed, “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.”
But a friend of Pitt told Page Six, “This case isn’t about what took place on a plane in 2016. It’s about whether they had an agreement not to sell their interests in the winery and family home without the other’s consent. That’s what Brad and his team are focused on, and so far the legal momentum has been on their side.
“The NDA Jolie was asked to sign is a standard business contract designed to protect the asset being sold – in this case her stake in Chateau Miraval. It’s unclear why she finds this so unconscionable when her own lawyers suggested a mutually binding gagging clause as part of their divorce just a few months later.”
A Luxembourg court has provisionally stripped Shefler of 10 percent of the shares he bought from Jolie, effectively making Pitt the majority shareholder.
While Jolie’s efforts to dismiss Pitt’s central breach of contract claim – being heard in California – will go ahead. LA Superior Court is being asked by Pitt to unwind the sale completely.
A hearing on disclosure will take place on May 16. A full trial is not expected this year.
