Brad Pitt bites back: Angelina Jolie wanted ‘onerous’ NDA, not me!

Welcome to The Scoop — the ultimate back-to-the-office water cooler cheat sheet, your go-to source for all things everyone really wants to know! Get the latest on everything from the political swamp maneuvering in D.C. to Hollywood drama to jaw-dropping small-town shenanigans from Paula Froelich. Subscribe to her newsletter here. 

(NewsNation) — Angelina Jolie shocked a court when she filed papers Thursday that Brad Pitt was abusive towards her even before the 2016 plane incident in which it was claimed he attacked her and one of their children.

The claim is part of Jolie’s motion seeking to release communications between the duo that show Pitt would not let Jolie sell her shares of the Chateau Miraval to him without an “onerous” and “expansive” nondisclosure agreement.

In the filing, per People, “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.”

However, a friend of Pitt’s fumed, “Angelina wanted the onerous NDA, not him”.

“This is a pattern of behavior — whenever there is a decision that goes against the other side they consistently choose to introduce misleading, inaccurate and/or irrelevant information as a distraction… There was a lengthy custody trial that involved the entire history of their relationship and a judge who heard all the evidence still granted him 50/50 custody.”

According to a 2023 amended complaint: “Pitt and Jolie were on the cusp of striking a deal on a buyout of Jolie’s stake in Miraval, on June 13, 2021, Jolie informed counsel handling the negotiations for Pitt and Perrin through her Luxembourg attorney, Laurent Schummer, that she was ‘stepping back from all aspects of negotiations regarding the sale of her stake in Miraval’ purportedly because of the ‘restrictive language’ requested in the mutual non-disparagement clause, which she claimed was ‘designed to limit (her) freedom to speak.’”

But, as Pitt’s lawyers note, “This was clearly pretextual. Less than a year later, in connection with the former couple’s divorce proceedings, Jolie, through divorce counsel, proposed an even broader nondisparagement clause that would have provided that ‘[o]ther than in court pleadings or testimony, neither party shall directly or through a party’s representatives make in a public forum any derogatory remark about the other party’.”

Pitt’s lawyer’s noted in the complaint that the Miraval NDA was strictly business.

“The mutual and standard clause proposed by counsel for Pitt and Perrin was narrower; it was intended to protect the business. It read: At no time for a legally binding period of four (4) years following the Closing Date, and, on a good faith basis, any period thereafter, shall the Parties (i) make any statements, or take any other actions whatsoever, to disparage, defame, or compromise the goodwill, name, brand or reputation of Miraval Provence or any of its affiliates or direct and indirect shareholders, including Ms. Angelina Jolie, Mr. William Bradley Pitt, Mr. Marc Perrin and Familles Perrin SAS or (ii) commit any other action that could likely injure, hinder or interfere with the Business, business relationships or goodwill of Miraval Provence, its affiliates or its direct and indirect shareholders.”

In addition, the complaint notes Jolie could say what she wanted about the divorce and custody proceedings, stating:  “The clause also made clear that there would be no limitation on Jolie’s ability to speak in connection with Pitt and Jolie’s divorce or custody proceedings. It specifically provided: This commitment shall however not limit the ability, for any Party, to make any claims, filings or testimony in any legal proceedings.