By Samuel López | USA Herald

LOS ANGELES — Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s years-long fight over Château Miraval has already involved disputed business agreements, allegations of abuse, millions of dollars and litigation stretching across jurisdictions.

Now, one courtroom exchange has added something else to the mix — an accusation, or at least an unmistakable suggestion, that gender may be influencing how a female lawyer’s advocacy is being characterized.

During a Tuesday hearing in Los Angeles Superior Court, Pitt attorney Julia B. Cherlow sought additional financial documents from Jolie as part of the ongoing dispute over the former couple’s French winery.

Jolie attorney Paul D. Murphy pushed back.

“I have to say this: In my entire career, I’ve never had people ask for more every single time,” Murphy told the court, according to reporting on the hearing.

Cherlow did not let the remark pass.

“I have to say, unfortunately, as a female advocate, I get more often than not, ‘Never in my career have I ever seen this,’” she responded. She added that Pitt’s side disputed Murphy’s account of how the discovery dispute had unfolded.

Murphy then told Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ciny Pánuco that he was “a little disappointed” by Cherlow’s response and did “not appreciate” the suggestion.

That distinction matters. The judge did not make a finding that Murphy acted in a sexist manner, and Cherlow did not appear to accuse him of explicit discrimination. What she did was place his criticism inside a broader issue familiar to many women in litigation — whether forceful advocacy is sometimes described differently when it comes from a woman.

The exchange is striking because the disagreement itself was fairly ordinary.

Discovery fights routinely become contentious. Lawyers accuse opposing counsel of asking for too much, withholding too much, delaying production or pushing requests beyond what the case actually requires. Experienced litigators hear versions of “I have never seen this before” all the time.

But Cherlow’s response changed the temperature of the hearing. Instead of treating Murphy’s statement merely as criticism of discovery tactics, she suggested there may be a gender component to how such advocacy is received.

The underlying dispute is anything but ordinary.

Pitt filed the Los Angeles case in 2022 after Jolie sold her interest in Château Miraval to Tenute del Mondo, a company connected to the Stoli business group. Pitt alleges Jolie violated an agreement that neither would sell an interest in the winery without the other’s consent. Jolie disputes that such a binding agreement existed. Trellis Law

The former couple acquired Miraval through their respective companies in 2008. Jolie eventually sold the California company holding her 50% interest in 2021. That transaction has since generated litigation involving Pitt, Jolie, Tenute, SPI Group and billionaire Yuri Shefler. Justia Law

The case has also produced major appellate litigation. In June, a California Court of Appeal ruled that California courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over Shefler, reversing an earlier ruling that had removed him from the case. The appellate court cited his involvement in structuring and financing the transaction, including a $39 million guarantee connected to Jolie’s sale. CaseMine

Discovery has become one of the central battlefields.

Pitt has sought financial records tied to Jolie’s contention that she wanted financial independence from him before selling her Miraval interest. Jolie has argued that older personal financial records are private, unnecessary and disconnected from the central contractual question. Earlier this year, she resisted demands for financial records from 2017 through 2019 while maintaining that her reason for leaving Miraval was not simply financial distress. 

Judge Pánuco ultimately rejected Pitt’s latest request for additional documentation, citing Jolie’s privacy interests. The court indicated that Pitt could instead require Jolie to state her financial position formally through an interrogatory response.

That ruling is important because it shows the court balancing relevance against privacy rather than simply allowing an open-ended search through Jolie’s finances.

And beneath the celebrity names, that is what this hearing was really about.

Discovery gives lawyers enormous power to demand documents, financial records, communications and sworn answers. But that power has limits. The fact that information might be useful does not automatically mean an opposing party must surrender every private record connected to it.

The separate argument over sexism may linger longer than the discovery ruling itself.

Cherlow’s comment raised a real issue about courtroom culture. Murphy firmly rejected the implication. The judge did not decide who was right about that exchange.

She did, however, decide the legal question in front of her.

Pitt does not get the additional financial documents — at least through this request. If his lawyers want Jolie committed to a specific financial explanation, they will have to put the question to her directly and obtain the answer on the record.

Keep Following the Cases Behind the Headlines

Visit USA Herald | Follow USA Herald on X