The high-stakes legal war between former Hollywood power couple Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt over their French vineyard, Château Miraval, reached another contentious flashpoint as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge shut down Pitt’s attempt to subpoena Jolie’s private financial records.
In a recent ruling, the court found “no good cause” to override Jolie’s privacy rights, denying the motion from Pitt’s legal team to access her financial documentation and third-party agreements. However, the bench left a narrow opening for Pitt’s counsel to revisit the request if Jolie’s future trial testimony or evidence directly places those income sources at issue.
Following the decision, counsel for Jolie slammed Pitt’s aggressive discovery strategy, framing the motion as part of a persistent legal campaign intended to penalize his ex-spouse.
“Ms. Jolie simply wants to untangle her life and business from Mr. Pitt and move forward,” her attorney, Paul Murphy, said in a statement.
Jolie’s team has repeatedly urged Pitt to drop the litigation to allow their family to heal, maintaining that the endless barrage of subpoenas crosses the line into strategic harassment.
At the core of the multi-year battle is the 2021 sale of Jolie’s 50 percent stake in Château Miraval to Tenute del Mondo, the wine division of Yuri Shefler’s Stoli Group.
Pitt sued Jolie shortly after, alleging the couple had an explicit verbal agreement requiring mutual consent before either party could sell their share.
Jolie has disputed the existence of any such binding agreement, countering that negotiations with Pitt broke down after he allegedly demanded she sign a sweeping non-disclosure agreement designed to cover personal conduct outside the winery operations.
Representatives for Pitt did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the court’s latest discovery ruling.
As both sides continue prepping for trial, the ruling hands Jolie a major procedural win on discovery boundaries, protecting her broader business affairs while forcing Pitt’s legal team to narrow their evidentiary focus strictly to the breach-of-contract claims at hand.
