ANGELINA Jolie has suffered a new defeat in her legal battle with ex-husband Brad Pitt over their French winery.

A judge at the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that Jolie, 48, must produce all non-disclosure agreements she agreed with third parties over an eight-year period from 2014 to 2022.

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are in a nasty legal dispute over the actress’ sale of her stake in their Chateau Miraval winery in FranceCredit: Getty

An aerial view of Pitt and Jolie’s luxurious Chateau Miraval winery in Correns, France, near BrignolesCredit: The Mega Agency

Brad Pitt scored a legal victory over his estranged ex-wife in court on WednesdayCredit: The Mega Agency

Angelina Jolie backed out of selling her stake in the winery to Pitt and instead sold it stake to Russian booze tycoon Yuri Shefler in October 2021Credit: Getty
Judge Lia Martin rejected Jolie’s objections that her NDAs had “no relevance.”

Jolie has been given 60 days by the court to produce all relevant documents.

NDAs have become a key issue in the dispute over the award-winning Chateau Miraval business in Provence, Southern France.

Jolie claims she backed out of selling her stake to Pitt, 60, after he asked her to sign an “unconscionable” privacy agreement as part of the deal.

Meanwhile, Pitt’s legal team has argued that the use of this defense is severely undermined by Jolie’s own routine use of NDAs.

They claim it is a smokescreen to “rationalize” the decision to sell her stake to Russian booze tycoon Yuri Shefler in October 2021.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood star Pitt is asking the court to reverse the sale.

He claims that he had an agreement with Jolie that neither of them would sell to a third party without the other’s consent.

His legal team says Jolie herself “weaponized” NDAs and even asked Pitt to sign one as part of their divorce talks just six months after the disputed sale.

They had asked that she reveal all NDAs she entered into, including with staff.

Brad Pitt claims he was ‘bullied & threatened’ by Russian tycoon in $30 million vineyard battle against Angelina Jolie
Judge Martin today sided with Pitt and ordered the Maleficent 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 ordered Jolie to produce NDAs entered into by companies she controls and documents showing the reasons that she or her companies asked for those NDAs.

A source close to Pitt told The U.S. Sun, “Angelina chose 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 NDAs she demanded of third parties.

“There is no question that this is a huge setback for her.

“There’s a long way to go, but in the context of the case so far, this is a hugely important and far-reaching ruling which will be problematic for her defense.”

JOLIE’S RAGE

The decision today comes less than a fortnight after the court received a witness statement from Jolie’s former bodyguard regarding her use of NDAs.

Former British special forces soldier Tony Webb worked for the family for more than 20 years after retiring from the military and setting up SRS Global Security Ltd.

Webb said in a written declaration that he typically took his orders regarding NDAs from Jolie’s personal assistant, Michael Vieira.

He claimed Jolie even threatened to sue two colleagues for breaching NDAs after they agreed to give evidence for Pitt in separate custody hearings – a move Pitt’s attorneys insist was “improper.”

Webb said in his statement earlier this month, “Shortly before two SRS Global contractors testified in a court case that I understood was related to Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt’s divorce and the custody of their children, Mr. Vieira called me on my cell phone.

“Mr. Viera told me that he had heard that two contractors who had provided personal security for Ms Jolie through SRS Global might be testifying in the family court case.

“Mr. Vieira then asked me to stop the two individuals from testifying. I understood that Mr. Vieira was making this request on behalf of Ms. Jolie.

“I explained to Mr. Vieira that I had no power to stop them because they were independent contractors and not employees of SRS Global.”

“Mr. Vieira then told me that his call should serve as a reminder that those individuals had entered into Non-Disclosure Agreements with Ms. Jolie and that I should remind them of that, and if they testified in the family law case, Ms. Jolie would sue them.”

Webb went on to explain that he communicated Vieira’s message to the two contractors over the phone, but both told him they planned to testify.

He added, “One of the two individuals, Ross Foster, specified that he intended to testify regardless of the NDA if he received a court subpoena.

“When Mr. Foster told me this, he also told me that if asked, he would testify about statements he overheard that Ms Jolie made to the children, encouraging them to avoid spending time with Mr. Pitt during custody visits.”

‘IMPROPER USE’ OF NDA

Webb went on to say Jolie’s personal assistant repeated her threat to sue the bodyguards in a follow-up phone call and elaborated on other NDAs she asked others to sign.

He said his instructions “included Mr. Vieira telling me to present people with non-disclosure agreements on behalf of Ms. Jolie and obtain their signatures.

“For example, Mr. Vieira often asked me to provide hotel staff with non-disclosure agreements and to get signatures from them.”

In a separate legal filing, Pitt’s attorney, John Berlinski, accused Jolie of using NDAs in an “improper manner.”

He added, “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 allegations in this case that Pitt improperly used an NDA to ‘silence’ her.”

The ruling today is the latest in a series of legal victories for Pitt.

In November 2023, a Luxembourg court made an order provisionally stripping Shefler of some of the shares he bought from Jolie.

It broke a 0-0 deadlock between Pitt and Shefler and effectively made Pitt the majority shareholder of the winery pending a full hearing.

In March, the Los Angeles Superior Court rejected Jolie’s claims that Pitt’s lawsuit was frivolous and malicious and gave the green light for a trial.

In November, a Luxembourg court ruled on stripping Yuri Shefler of some of the shares he bought from JolieCredit: AFP