LOS ANGELES — Angelina Jolie has secured a significant legal victory in her ongoing dispute with ex-husband Brad Pitt over their co-owned Château Miraval.
A Los Angeles judge ruled against Pitt’s request to access Jolie’s private communications, marking a notable development in the long-running legal battle.
Judge blocks access to private messages
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ciny Pánuco determined that Pitt had not met the legal threshold required to obtain the messages.
The court upheld arguments from Jolie’s legal team that the communications are protected under attorney-client privilege, meaning they cannot be disclosed.
The ruling also reinforced an earlier appellate court decision that had already blocked the release of the messages.
Court leaves room for future developments
While siding with Jolie, the judge noted that future evidence could potentially alter the situation.
The ruling stated that additional discovery in the case may produce facts that could challenge the current position, though Pitt’s team had not done so at this stage.
Penalty request denied
Jolie had also requested financial penalties totaling over $33,000, but the court declined to grant them.
The judge ruled that Pitt’s legal request was not without sufficient justification, even though it was ultimately unsuccessful.
Reactions from both sides
Jolie’s attorney, Paul Murphy, welcomed the decision, calling it an “important victory” and criticizing the attempt to access what he described as clearly protected communications.
Meanwhile, a source close to Pitt suggested the decision does not close the matter, noting that the issue could be revisited as new evidence emerges.
Background of the winery dispute
The legal battle centers on Château Miraval, the French winery once jointly owned by Jolie and Pitt.
The dispute began in 2022 after Jolie sold her stake in the property, a move Pitt claims violated a prior agreement—an assertion Jolie has denied.
Case continues
The ruling marks a key moment in the ongoing case but does not resolve the broader dispute.
With both sides continuing to contest aspects of the case, further legal developments are expected in the months ahead.
