1 PAUL D. MURPHY (State Bar No.

159556)
pmurphy@murphyrosen.com
2 DANIEL N. CSILLAG (State Bar No. 266773)
dcsillag@murphyrosen.com
3 STELLA CHANG (State Bar No. 335851)
schang@murphyrosen.com
4 MURPHY ROSEN LLP
100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300
5 Santa Monica, California 90401-1142
Telephone: (310) 899-3300
6 Facsimile: (310) 399-7201

7 Attorneys for Defendant and

Cross-Complainant Angelina Jolie
8

9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
11

12 WILLIAM B. PITT, an individual, and CASE NO. 22STCV06081

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201

MONDO BONGO, LLC, a California

100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 limited liability company, [Hon. Lia Martin]

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT AND CROSS-

COMPLAINANT ANGELINA JOLIE’S
15 vs. SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
16 ANGELINA JOLIE, an individual, and RESPONSES FROM WILLIAM B. PITT
NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited TO FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
17 liability company, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

18 Defendants. [Filed concurrently with (i) Notice of Motion

and Motion to Compel, (ii) Declaration of
19 Paul D. Murphy, Exhibits, and (iii)
(Proposed) Order]
20
Date: August 1, 2024
21 Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 3
22

23 AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS. Reservation ID: 640811717941

24

25

26

27

28

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pursuant to Rule 3.1345(a) of the California Rules of Court, Defendant and Cross-

2 Complainant Angelina Jolie (“Jolie”) hereby submits this Separate Statement in support of her

3 Motion to Compel Further Responses from William B. Pitt (“Pitt”) to Request for Production,

4 Set One.

5 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

7 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with the FBI from September 14, 2016 to December 31,

8 2016 regarding its investigation into what transpired on the FLIGHT.

9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

10 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

11 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

12 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

15 in this action.

16 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

17 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

18 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

19 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

20 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

21 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

22 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

23 This case is about Pitt’s failed attempt to purchase Jolie’s interest in Chateau

24 Miraval. The two had an agreement in place where Pitt would purchase Jolie’s interest in

25 Miraval, but in June 2021, that agreement fell apart. Pitt alleges that Jolie walked away

26 from the deal in anger over a supposed adverse ruling in their child custody case. As Pitt

27 details in his Second Amended Complaint, Jolie supposedly sold her interest in Miraval to a

28 third party as a vindictive measure specifically designed to inflict harm on him, so much so

-2- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 that Pitt seeks punitive damages from Jolie in this case. Jolie, on the other hand, contends

2 that it was Pitt who is responsible for the collapse of the deal when he demanded an NDA

3 covering not only Miraval’s business, but Pitt’s personal misconduct irrespective of any

4 relationship to Miraval’s business. In her Cross-Complaint, Jolie alleges that Pitt

5 demanded this personal NDA to cover up, among other things, his abuse of Jolie and their

6 children, and his dishonesty with authorities who investigated Pitt’s violent actions towards

7 his family.

8 To defend herself, Jolie must gather the evidence necessary to demonstrate why Pitt

9 demanded an NDA as a condition of buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval, why his demand

10 was controlling and deeply hurtful to Jolie, and why that demand ultimately served to blow

11 up the sale. As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically

12 and emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Los Angeles. The FBI immediately opened an investigation into the matter. RFP No. 1
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 seeks Pitt’s communications with the FBI during its investigation at the end of 2016.

15 Pitt objects to RFP No. 1 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant

16 to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the

17 discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (2007). Evidence

18 is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its

19 case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is

20 sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.”

21 Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See also John B.

22 v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if it might

23 reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

24 The relevance of these documents is obvious. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell

25 apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to

26 use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of J olie and her

27 family and his subsequent efforts to escape the consequences of his actions. Pitt disputes

28 this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a

-3- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later).

2 In fact, Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC,

3 calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie

4 disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, will present evidence establishing that the

5 deal cratered because Pitt had something to hide—his abuse of Jolie and their children and

6 his related coverup—and he felt he needed Jolie’s contractual commitment to keep that

7 conduct out of the public’s eye. Pitt’s direct communications with the FBI about its

8 investigation will undoubtedly assist Jolie in evaluating and proving her case by revealing

9 precisely what Pitt told the FBI about the abusive conduct it was investigating. These

10 documents are discoverable. Pitt should be compelled to produce them.

11 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 1 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by the

12 right of privacy under the California Constitution. This is a meritless and even dangerous
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 assertion. As an initial matter, the notion that one who assaults his partner and their
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 children has a right of privacy in that conduct is wholly unsupported by any case law. Pitt

15 cannot be correct, for domestic abusers are prosecuted routinely for physically abusing their

16 partners and children. The right of privacy does not insulate such conduct from

17 prosecution. And it does not insulate that same conduct from discovery in this civil case

18 where Pitt placed that conduct squarely at issue by demanding a draconian NDA designed

19 to bury it.

20 A “court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely

21 assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046

22 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be

23 specifically identified and carefully comparted with competing our countervailing privacy

24 and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7

25 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party

26 asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective

27 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing

28 party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

-4- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

2 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

3 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

4 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

5 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

6 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

7 of their deal when Jolie refused.

8 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her

9 answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses.

10 Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evide nce.

11 Studies confirm that women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

12 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie not only has the right to collect documentary

15 evidence to prove her case, but these studies counsel that such documentary evidence is

16 essential to establishing domestic violence. The right of privacy in this instance, if any,

17 cannot deprive Jolie of her ability to do so.

18 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

19 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

20 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

21 communications with others. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law.

22 Merely because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from

23 someone else does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most

24 direct way for Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with the FBI is for Pitt to produce

25 them. They are documents within his possession, custody, or control and are relevant to

26 this case. The Court should order him to produce them.

27

28

-5- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

2 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with GRANT regarding the FBI’s investigation into what

3 transpired on the FLIGHT.

4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

5 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

6 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

7 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

8 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

9 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

10 in this action.

11 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

12 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

15 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

16 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

17 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

18 This case is about Pitt’s failed attempt to purchase Jolie’s interest in Chateau

19 Miraval. The two had an agreement in place where Pitt would purchase Jolie’s interest in

20 Miraval, but, in June 2021, that agreement fell apart. Pitt alleges that Jolie walked away

21 from the deal in anger over a supposed adverse ruling in their child custody case. As Pitt

22 details in his Second Amended Complaint, Jolie supposedly sold her interest in Miraval to a

23 third party as a vindictive measure specifically designed to inflict harm on him, so much so

24 that Pitt seeks punitive damages from Jolie in this case. Jolie, on the other hand, contends

25 that it was Pitt who is responsible for the collapse of the deal when he demanded an NDA

26 covering not only Miraval’s business, but Pitt’s personal misconduct irrespective of any

27 relationship to Miraval’s business. In her Cross-Complaint, Jolie alleges that Pitt

28 demanded this personal NDA to cover up, among other things, his abuse of Jolie and their

-6- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 children, and his dishonesty with authorities who investigated Pitt’s violent actions towards

2 his family.

3 To defend herself, Jolie must gather the evidence necessary to demonstrate why Pitt

4 demanded an NDA as a condition of buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval, why his demand

5 was controlling and deeply hurtful to Jolie, and why that demand ultimately served to blow

6 up the sale. As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically

7 and emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to

8 Los Angeles. The FBI immediately opened an investigation into the matter. RFP No. 2

9 seeks Pitt’s communications with Cross-Defendant Warren Grant—Pitt’s business manager

10 and Mondo Bongo’s manager—about the FBI’s investigation. Pitt has specifically

11 acknowledged that Grant is a custodian of Pitt’s documents whose records must be

12 searched.
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Pitt objects to RFP No. 2 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the

15 discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (2007). Evidence

16 is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its

17 case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is

18 sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.”

19 Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See also John B.

20 v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if it might

21 reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

22 The relevance of these documents is obvious. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell

23 apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to

24 use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of J olie and her

25 family and his subsequent efforts to escape the consequences of his actions. Pitt disputes

26 this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a

27 nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue

28 in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of

-7- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will

2 present evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury —his abuse of Jolie

3 and their children. Pitt’s communications with Grant about the FBI’s investigation will

4 undoubtedly assist Jolie in evaluating and proving her case by revealing Pitt’s

5 contemporaneous communications with his trusted advisor about the abusive conduct the

6 FBI was investigating. The documents are discoverable and should be produced.

7 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 2 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by the

8 right of privacy under the California Constitution. This is a meritless and even dangerous

9 assertion. As an initial matter, the notion that one who assaults his partner and their

10 children has a right of privacy in that conduct is wholly unsupported by any case law. Pitt

11 cannot be correct, for domestic abusers are prosecuted routinely for physically abusing their

12 partners and children. The right of privacy does not insulate such conduct from
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 prosecution. And it does not insulate that same conduct from discovery in this civil case
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 where Pitt placed that conduct squarely at issue by demanding a draconian NDA designed

15 to bury it.

16 A “court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely

17 assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046

18 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be

19 specifically identified and carefully comparted with competing our countervailing privacy

20 and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7

21 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party

22 asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective

23 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing

24 party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

25 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

26 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

27 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

28 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

-8- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

2 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

3 of their deal when Jolie refused.

4 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her

5 answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses.

6 Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evide nce.

7 Studies confirm that women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

8 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:

9 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167

10 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie not only has the right to collect documentary

11 evidence to prove her case, but these studies counsel that such documentary evidence is

12 essential to establishing domestic violence. The right of privacy in this instance, if any,
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 cannot deprive Jolie of her ability to do so.

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

15 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

16 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

17 communications with others. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law.

18 Merely because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from

19 someone else does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce the m. Indeed, the most

20 direct way for Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Grant is for Pitt to produce them.

21 They are documents within his possession, custody, or control and are relevant to this case.

22 The Court should order him to produce them.

23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

24 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with LIEBMAN regarding the FBI’s investigation into

25 what transpired on the FLIGHT.

26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

27 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

28 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

-9- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

2 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

3 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

4 in this action.

5 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

6 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

7 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

8 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

9 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

10 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

11 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

12 This case is about Pitt’s failed attempt to purchase Jolie’s interest in Chateau
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Miraval. The two had an agreement in place where Pitt would purchase Jolie’s interest in
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Miraval, but, in June 2021, that agreement fell apart. Pitt alleges that Jolie walked away

15 from the deal in anger over a supposed adverse ruling in their child custody case. As Pitt

16 details in his Second Amended Complaint, Jolie supposedly sold her interest in Miraval to a

17 third party as a vindictive measure specifically designed to inflict harm on him, so much so

18 that Pitt seeks punitive damages from Jolie in this case. Jolie, on the other hand, contends

19 that it was Pitt who is responsible for the collapse of the deal when he demanded an NDA

20 covering not only Miraval’s business, but Pitt’s personal misconduct irrespective of any

21 relationship to Miraval’s business. In her Cross-Complaint, Jolie alleges that Pitt

22 demanded this personal NDA to cover up, among other things, his abuse of Jolie and their

23 children, and his dishonesty with authorities who investigated Pitt’s violent actions towards

24 his family.

25 To defend herself, Jolie must gather the evidence necessary to demonstrate why Pitt

26 demanded an NDA as a condition of buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval, why his demand

27 was controlling and deeply hurtful to Jolie, and why that demand ultimately served to blow

28 up the sale. As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically

-10- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 and emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to

2 Los Angeles. The FBI immediately opened an investigation into the matter. RFP No. 3

3 seeks Pitt’s communications with Jon Liebman about the FBI’s investigation into P itt. Mr.

4 Liebman is the Chairman and CEO of Brillstein Entertainment Partners, a talent

5 management and production company, and one of Pitt’s trusted advisors. Pitt has

6 specifically acknowledged that Liebman is a custodian of Pitt’s documents whose record s

7 must be searched.

8 Pitt objects to RFP No. 3 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant

9 to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the

10 discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (2007). Evidence

11 is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its

12 case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.”
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See also John B.

15 v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if it might

16 reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

17 The relevance of these documents is obvious. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell

18 apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to

19 use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of J olie and her

20 family and his subsequent efforts to escape the consequences of his actions. Pitt disputes

21 this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a

22 nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue

23 in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of

24 the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will

25 present evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie

26 and their children. Pitt’s communications with Liebman about the FBI’s investigation will

27 undoubtedly assist Jolie in evaluating and proving her case by revealing Pitt’s

28 contemporaneous communications with his trusted advisor about the abusive conduct the

-11- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 FBI was investigating.

2 In fact, Liebman had direct communications with the Department of Children and

3 Family Services (“DCFS”) as part of its investigation into Pitt’s abuse of Jolie and their

4 children. Jolie understand Liebman also had at least some direct communications with the

5 FBI, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and perhaps other agencies as well. Given Liebman’s

6 direct role in the investigation, he certainly had direct communications with Pitt about these

7 investigations, which are highly relevant to Jolie’s defenses and cross-claims. These

8 documents are discoverable and should be produced.

9 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 3 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by the

10 right of privacy under the California Constitution. This is a meritless and even dangerous

11 assertion. As an initial matter, the notion that one who assaults his partner and their

12 children has a right of privacy in that conduct is wholly unsupported by any case law. Pitt
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 cannot be correct, for domestic abusers are prosecuted routinely for physically abusing their
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 partners and children. The right of privacy does not insulate such conduct from

15 prosecution. And it does not insulate that same conduct from discovery in this civil case

16 where Pitt placed that conduct squarely at issue by demanding a draconian NDA designed

17 to bury it.

18 A “court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely

19 assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046

20 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be

21 specifically identified and carefully comparted with competing our countervailing privacy

22 and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7

23 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party

24 asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective

25 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing

26 party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

27 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

28 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

-12- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

2 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

3 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

4 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

5 of their deal when Jolie refused.

6 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her

7 answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses.

8 Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evide nce.

9 Studies confirm that women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

10 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:

11 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167

12 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie not only has the right to collect documentary
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 evidence to prove her case, but these studies counsel that such documentary evidence is
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 essential to establishing domestic violence. The right of privacy in this instance, if any,

15 cannot deprive Jolie of her ability to do so.

16 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

17 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

18 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

19 communications with others. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law.

20 Merely because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from

21 someone else does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce the m. Indeed, the most

22 direct way for Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Liebman is for Pitt to produce

23 them. They are documents within his possession, custody, or control and are relevant to

24 this case. The Court should order him to produce them.

25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

26 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with PETT-DONTE regarding the FBI’s investigation

27 into what transpired on the FLIGHT.

28

-13- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

2 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

3 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

4 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

5 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

6 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

7 in this action.

8 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

9 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

10 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

11 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

12 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

15 This case is about Pitt’s failed attempt to purchase Jolie’s interest in Chateau

16 Miraval. The two had an agreement in place where Pitt would purchase Jolie’s interest in

17 Miraval, but, in June 2021, that agreement fell apart. Pitt alleges that Jolie walked away

18 from the deal in anger over a supposed adverse ruling in their child custody case. As Pitt

19 details in his Second Amended Complaint, Jolie supposedly sold her interest in Miraval to a

20 third party as a vindictive measure specifically designed to inflict harm on him, so much so

21 that Pitt seeks punitive damages from Jolie in this case. Jolie, on the other hand, contends

22 that it was Pitt who is responsible for the collapse of the deal when he demanded an NDA

23 covering not only Miraval’s business, but Pitt’s personal misconduct irrespective of any

24 relationship to Miraval’s business. In her Cross-Complaint, Jolie alleges that Pitt

25 demanded this personal NDA to cover up, among other things, his abuse of Jolie and their

26 children, and his dishonesty with authorities who investigated Pitt’s violent actions towards

27 his family.

28

-14- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 To defend herself, Jolie must gather the evidence necessary to demonstrate why Pitt

2 demanded an NDA as a condition of buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval, why his demand

3 was controlling and deeply hurtful to Jolie, and why that demand ultimately served to blow

4 up the sale. As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically

5 and emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to

6 Los Angeles. The FBI immediately opened an investigation into the matter. RFP No. 4

7 seeks Pitt’s communications with Cynthia Pett-Dante 1 about the FBI’s investigation. Pett-

8 Dante is the co-owner and managing partner of Brillstein Entertainment Partners, a talent

9 management and production company, and one of Pitt’s trusted advisors.

10 Pitt objects to RFP No. 4 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant

11 to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the

12 discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (2007). Evidence
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is

15 sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.”

16 Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See also John B.

17 v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if it might

18 reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

19 The relevance of these documents is obvious. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell

20 apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to

21 use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of J olie and her

22 family and his subsequent efforts to escape the consequences of his actions. Pitt disputes

23 this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a

24 nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue

25 in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of

26 the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will

27

28 1
The requests use the spelling “Donte,” but the actual spelling is “Dante.” Pitt has
not objected based on the inadvertent misspelling of her name.
-15- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 present evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury —his abuse of Jolie

2 and their children. Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante about the FBI’s investigation

3 will undoubtedly assist Jolie in evaluating and proving her case by revealing Pitt’s

4 contemporaneous communications with his trusted advisor about the abusive conduct the

5 FBI was investigating. The documents are discoverable and should be produced.

6 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 4 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by the

7 right of privacy under the California Constitution. This is a meritless and even dangerous

8 assertion. As an initial matter, the notion that one who assaults his partner and their

9 children has a right of privacy in that conduct is wholly unsupported by any case law. Pitt

10 cannot be correct, for domestic abusers are prosecuted routinely for physically abusing their

11 partners and children. The right of privacy does not insulate such conduct from

12 prosecution. And it does not insulate that same conduct from discovery in this civil case
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 where Pitt placed that conduct squarely at issue by demanding a draconian NDA designed
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 to bury it.

15 A “court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely

16 assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046

17 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be

18 specifically identified and carefully comparted with competing our countervailing privacy

19 and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7

20 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party

21 asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective

22 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing

23 party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

24 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

25 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

26 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

27 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

28 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

-16- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

2 of their deal when Jolie refused.

3 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her

4 answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses.

5 Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evide nce.

6 Studies confirm that women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

7 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:

8 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167

9 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie not only has the right to collect documentary

10 evidence to prove her case, but these studies counsel that such documentary evidence is

11 essential to establishing domestic violence. The right of privacy in this instance, if any,

12 cannot deprive Jolie of her ability to do so.

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

15 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

16 communications with others. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law.

17 Merely because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from

18 someone else does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most

19 direct way for Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante is for Pitt to produce

20 them. They are documents within his possession, custody, or control and are relevant to

21 this case. The Court should order him to produce them.

22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

23 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with PERRIN regarding the FBI’s investigation into what

24 transpired on the FLIGHT.

25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

26 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

27 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

28 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

-17- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

2 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

3 in this action.

4 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

5 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

6 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

7 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

8 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

9 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

10 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

11 This case is about Pitt’s failed attempt to purchase Jolie’s interest in Chateau

12 Miraval. The two had an agreement in place where Pitt would purchase Jolie’s interest in
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Miraval, but, in June 2021, that agreement fell apart. Pitt alleges that Jolie walked away
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 from the deal in anger over a supposed adverse ruling in their child custody case. As Pitt

15 details in his Second Amended Complaint, Jolie supposedly sold her interest in Miraval to a

16 third party as a vindictive measure specifically designed to inflict harm on him, so much so

17 that Pitt seeks punitive damages from Jolie in this case. Jolie, on the other hand, contends

18 that it was Pitt who is responsible for the collapse of the deal when he demanded an NDA

19 covering not only Miraval’s business, but Pitt’s personal misconduct irrespective of any

20 relationship to Miraval’s business. In her Cross-Complaint, Jolie alleges that Pitt

21 demanded this personal NDA to cover up, among other things, his abuse of Jolie and their

22 children, and his dishonesty with authorities who investigated Pitt’s violent actions towards

23 his family.

24 To defend herself, Jolie must gather the evidence necessary to demonstrate why Pitt

25 demanded an NDA as a condition of buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval, why his demand

26 was controlling and deeply hurtful to Jolie, and why that demand ultimately served to blow

27 up the sale. As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically

28 and emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to

-18- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Los Angeles. The FBI immediately opened an investigation into the matter. RFP No. 5

2 seeks Pitt’s communications with Cross-Defendant Perrin—Pitt’s business partner in the

3 Miraval joint venture, Miraval Provence—about the FBI’s investigation.

4 Pitt objects to RFP No. 5 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant

5 to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the

6 discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (2007). Evidence

7 is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its

8 case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is

9 sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.”

10 Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See also John B.

11 v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if it might

12 reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 The relevance of these documents is obvious. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to

15 use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of J olie and her

16 family and his subsequent efforts to escape the consequences of his actions. Pitt disputes

17 this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a

18 nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue

19 in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of

20 the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will

21 present evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie

22 and their children. Pitt’s communications with Perrin, his business partner in the Miraval

23 joint venture, about the FBI’s investigation will undoubtedly assist Jolie in evaluating and

24 proving her case by revealing Pitt’s contemporaneous communications with his partner and

25 the potential impact on Miraval. The documents are discoverable and should be produced.

26 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 5 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by the

27 right of privacy under the California Constitution.

28

-19- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 This is a meritless and even dangerous assertion. As an initial matter, the notion that

2 one who assaults his partner and their children has a right of privacy in that conduct is

3 wholly unsupported by any case law. Pitt cannot be correct, for domestic abu sers are

4 prosecuted routinely for physically abusing their partners and children. The right of

5 privacy does not insulate such conduct from prosecution. And it does not insulate that

6 same conduct from discovery in this civil case where Pitt placed that conduct squarely at

7 issue by demanding a draconian NDA designed to bury it.

8 A “court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely

9 assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046

10 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be

11 specifically identified and carefully comparted with competing our countervailing privacy

12 and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective

15 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing

16 party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

17 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

18 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

19 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

20 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

21 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

22 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

23 of their deal when Jolie refused.

24 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her

25 answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses.

26 Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evide nce.

27 Studies confirm that women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

28 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:

-20- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167

2 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie not only has the right to collect documentary

3 evidence to prove her case, but these studies counsel that such documentary evidence is

4 essential to establishing domestic violence. The right of privacy in this instance, if any,

5 cannot deprive Jolie of her ability to do so.

6 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

7 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

8 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

9 communications with others. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law.

10 Merely because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from

11 someone else does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce the m. Indeed, the most

12 direct way for Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Perrin is for Pitt to produce them.
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 They are documents within his possession, custody, or control and are relevant to this case.
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 The Court should order him to produce them.

15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

16 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with MALCHAR regarding the FBI’s investigation into

17 what transpired on the FLIGHT.

18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

19 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

20 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

21 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

22 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

23 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

24 in this action.

25 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

26 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

27 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

28 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

-21- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

2 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

3 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

4 This case is about Pitt’s failed attempt to purchase Jolie’s interest in Chateau

5 Miraval. The two had an agreement in place where Pitt would purchase Jolie’s interest in

6 Miraval, but, in June 2021, that agreement fell apart. Pitt alleges that Jolie walked away

7 from the deal in anger over a supposed adverse ruling in their child custody case. As Pitt

8 details in his Second Amended Complaint, Jolie supposedly sold her interest in Miraval to a

9 third party as a vindictive measure specifically designed to inflict harm on him, so much so

10 that Pitt seeks punitive damages from Jolie in this case. Jolie, on the other hand, contends

11 that it was Pitt who is responsible for the collapse of the deal when he demanded an NDA

12 covering not only Miraval’s business, but Pitt’s personal misconduct irrespective of any
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 relationship to Miraval’s business. In her Cross-Complaint, Jolie alleges that Pitt

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 demanded this personal NDA to cover up, among other things, his abuse of Jolie and their

15 children, and his dishonesty with authorities who investigated Pitt’s violent actions towards

16 his family.

17 To defend herself, Jolie must gather the evidence necessary to demonstrate why Pitt

18 demanded an NDA as a condition of buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval, why his demand

19 was controlling and deeply hurtful to Jolie, and why that demand ultimately served to blow

20 up the sale. As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically

21 and emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to

22 Los Angeles. The FBI immediately opened an investigation into the matter. RFP No. 6

23 seeks Pitt’s communications with Richard Malchar about the FBI’s investigation into Pitt.

24 Malchar provided security services to Pitt through a company, Clearview Protective

25 Services Inc., and appears to have also assisted Pitt with personal matters.

26 Pitt objects to RFP No. 6 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant

27 to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the

28 discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (2007). Evidence

-22- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its

2 case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is

3 sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.”

4 Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See also John B.

5 v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if it might

6 reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

7 The relevance of these documents is obvious. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell

8 apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to

9 use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of J olie and her

10 family and his subsequent efforts to escape the consequences of his actions. Pitt disputes

11 this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a

12 nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will

15 present evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie

16 and their children. Pitt’s communications with Malchar about the FBI’s investigation will

17 undoubtedly assist Jolie in evaluating and proving her case by revealing Pitt’s

18 contemporaneous communications with his trusted attendant about the abusive conduct the

19 FBI was investigating.

20 In fact, Malchar had direct communications with DCFS as part of its investigation

21 into Pitt’s abuse of Jolie and their children. Jolie understands Malchar may also have had

22 direct communications with other agencies investigating Pitt as well. Given Malchar’s

23 direct role in the investigation, he certainly had direct communications with Pitt or Pitt’s

24 other agents about these investigations, which are highly relevant to Jolie’s defenses and

25 cross-claims. These documents are discoverable and should be produced.

26 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 6 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by the

27 right of privacy under the California Constitution. This is a meritless and even dangerous

28 assertion. As an initial matter, the notion that one who assaults his partner and their

-23- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 children has a right of privacy in that conduct is wholly unsupported by any case law. Pitt

2 cannot be correct, for domestic abusers are prosecuted routinely for physically abusing their

3 partners and children. The right of privacy does not insulate such conduct from

4 prosecution. And it does not insulate that same conduct from discovery in this civil case

5 where Pitt placed that conduct squarely at issue by demanding a draconian NDA designed

6 to bury it.

7 A “court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely

8 assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046

9 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be

10 specifically identified and carefully comparted with competing our countervailing privacy

11 and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7

12 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing

15 party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

16 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

17 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

18 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

19 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

20 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

21 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

22 of their deal when Jolie refused.

23 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her

24 answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses.

25 Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evide nce.

26 Studies confirm that women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

27 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:

28 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167

-24- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie not only has the right to collect documentary

2 evidence to prove her case, but these studies counsel that such documentary evidence is

3 essential to establishing domestic violence. The right of privacy in this instanc e, if any,

4 cannot deprive Jolie of her ability to do so.

5 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

6 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

7 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

8 communications with others. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law.

9 Merely because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from

10 someone else does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce the m. Indeed, the most

11 direct way for Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Malchar is for Pitt to produce

12 them. They are documents within his possession, custody, or control and are relevant to
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 this case. The Court should order him to produce them.

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:

15 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with any public relations company from September 14,

16 2016 to February 16, 2022 regarding the FBI’s investigation into what transpired on the

17 FLIGHT.

18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:

19 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

20 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

21 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

22 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

23 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

24 in this action.

25 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

26 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

27 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

28 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

-25- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

2 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

3 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

4 This case is about Pitt’s failed attempt to purchase Jolie’s interest in Chateau

5 Miraval. The two had an agreement in place where Pitt would purchase Jolie’s interest in

6 Miraval, but, in June 2021, that agreement fell apart. Pitt alleges that Jolie walked away

7 from the deal in anger over a supposed adverse ruling in their child custody case. As Pitt

8 details in his Second Amended Complaint, Jolie supposedly sold her interest in Miraval to a

9 third party as a vindictive measure specifically designed to inflict harm on him, so much so

10 that Pitt seeks punitive damages from Jolie in this case. Jolie, on the other hand, contends

11 that it was Pitt who is responsible for the collapse of the deal when he demanded an NDA

12 covering not only Miraval’s business, but Pitt’s personal misconduct irrespective of any
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 relationship to Miraval’s business. In her Cross-Complaint, Jolie alleges that Pitt

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 demanded this personal NDA to cover up, among other things, his abuse of Jolie and their

15 children, and his dishonesty with authorities who investigated Pitt’s violent actions towards

16 his family.

17 To defend herself, Jolie must gather the evidence necessary to demonstrate why Pitt

18 demanded an NDA as a condition of buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval, why his demand

19 was controlling and deeply hurtful to Jolie, and why that demand ultimately served to blow

20 up the sale. As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically

21 and emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to

22 Los Angeles. The FBI immediately opened an investigation into the matter. RFP No. 7

23 seeks Pitt’s communications with any public relations company about the FBI’s

24 investigation into Pitt.

25 Pitt objects to RFP No. 7 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant

26 to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the

27 discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (2007). Evidence

28 is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its

-26- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is

2 sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.”

3 Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See also John B.

4 v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if it might

5 reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

6 Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA.

7 Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of

8 covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family and his subsequent efforts to escape the

9 consequences of his actions. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart

10 over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later).

11 Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a

12 “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying misconduct that
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s communications with a

15 public relations company about the FBI’s investigation will undoubtedly assist Jolie in

16 evaluating and proving her case by revealing what Pitt was telling the media about the

17 FBI’s investigation. Jolie expects that Pitt’s communications will reveal that he was not

18 truthful with public relations companies who worked with Pitt to manage the FBI’s

19 investigation vis-à-vis the public. This untruthfulness is important for Jolie to be able to

20 show at trial because it will underscore how important it was for Pitt to get the NDA from

21 her as part of the Miraval sale. Without it, Pitt would be exposed not just on the fact of his

22 abuse itself, but also for his dishonesty and attempt to cover up his conduct through a public

23 relations campaign built upon falsehoods.

24 However, upon further review, Jolie is willing to limit the time period for this

25 request to communications from September 14, 2016 to December 31, 2018.

26 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 7 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by the

27 right of privacy under the California Constitution. This is a meritless and even dangerous

28 assertion. As an initial matter, the notion that one who assaults his partner and their

-27- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 children has a right of privacy in that conduct is wholly unsupported by any case law. Pitt

2 cannot be correct, for domestic abusers are prosecuted routinely for physically abusing their

3 partners and children. The right of privacy does not insulate such conduct from

4 prosecution. And it does not insulate that same conduct from discovery in this civil case

5 where Pitt placed that conduct squarely at issue by demanding a draconian NDA designed

6 to bury it.

7 A “court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely

8 assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046

9 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be

10 specifically identified and carefully comparted with competing our countervailing privacy

11 and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7

12 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing

15 party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

16 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

17 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

18 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

19 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

20 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

21 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

22 of their deal when Jolie refused.

23 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her

24 answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses.

25 Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evide nce.

26 Studies confirm that women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

27 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:

28 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167

-28- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie not only has the right to collect documentary

2 evidence to prove her case, but these studies counsel that such documentary evidence is

3 essential to establishing domestic violence. The right of privacy in this instanc e, if any,

4 cannot deprive Jolie of her ability to do so.

5 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

6 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

7 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

8 communications with others. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law.

9 Merely because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from

10 someone else does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce the m. Indeed, the most

11 direct way for Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with public relations companies he

12 worked with is for Pitt to produce them. They are documents within his possession,
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 custody, or control and are relevant to this case. The Court should order him to produce
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 them.

15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

16 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with the USAO from September 14, 2016 to December

17 31, 2016 regarding the FLIGHT.

18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

19 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

20 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

21 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

22 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

23 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

24 in this action.

25 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

26 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

27 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

28 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

-29- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

2 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

3 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

4 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

5 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

6 Angeles. The FBI immediately opened an investigation into the matter, and the agent in

7 charge ultimately prepared a statement of probable cause to charge Pitt with a federal

8 offense for referral to the United States Attorneys’ Office (“USAO”) for prosecution. RFP

9 No. 8 seeks Pitt’s communications with the USAO during its investigation into whether to

10 file charges against Pitt.

11 Pitt objects to RFP No. 8 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant

12 to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (2007). Evidence
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its

15 case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is

16 sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.”

17 Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See also John B.

18 v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if it might

19 reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

20 Pitt’s communications with the USAO are highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims

21 that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the

22 case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior

23 abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart

24 over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later).

25 He specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a

26 “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to

27 present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying misconduct that

28 Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s communications with the

-30- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 USAO may contain powerful and candid admissions to that office that will assist Jolie in

2 evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and affirmative defenses to trial. Jolie

3 is entitled to receive this evidence.

4 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 8 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by the

5 right of privacy under the California Constitution. This is a meritless and even dangerous

6 assertion. As an initial matter, the notion that one who assaults his partner and their

7 children has a right of privacy in that conduct is wholly unsupported by any case law. Pitt

8 cannot be correct, for domestic abusers are prosecuted routinely for physically abusing their

9 partners and children. The right of privacy does not insulate such conduct from

10 prosecution. And it does not insulate that same conduct from discovery in this civil case

11 where Pitt placed that conduct squarely at issue by demanding a draconian NDA designed

12 to bury it.
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 A “court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046

15 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be

16 specifically identified and carefully comparted with competing our countervailing privacy

17 and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7

18 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party

19 asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective

20 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing

21 party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

22 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

23 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

24 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

25 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

26 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

27 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

28 of their deal when Jolie refused.

-31- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her

2 answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses.

3 Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evide nce.

4 Studies confirm that women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

5 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:

6 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167

7 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie not only has the right to collect documentary

8 evidence to prove her case, but these studies counsel that such documentary evidence is

9 essential to establishing domestic violence. The right of privacy in this instance, if any,

10 cannot deprive Jolie of her ability to do so.

11 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

12 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 communications with others. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law.

15 Merely because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from

16 someone else does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce the m. Indeed, the most

17 direct way for Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with the USAO is for Pitt to produce

18 them. They are documents within his possession, custody, or control and are relevant to

19 this case. The Court should order him to produce them.

20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:

21 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with GRANT regarding the USAO’s investigation into

22 and decision-making about what transpired on the FLIGHT.

23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:

24 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

25 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

26 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

27 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

28 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

-32- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 in this action.

2 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

3 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt also

4 objects to the use of the term “decision-making,” which is vague, ambiguous, and undefined.

5 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide

6 information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of

7 Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

8 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

9 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

10 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

11 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

12 Angeles. The FBI immediately opened an investigation into the matter, and the agent in
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 charge ultimately prepared a statement of probable cause to charge Pitt with a federal
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 offense for referral to the United States Attorneys’ Office (“USAO”) for prosecution. RFP

15 No. 9 seeks Pitt’s communications with Cross-Defendant Warren Grant about the USAO’s

16 investigation into whether to file charges against Pitt. Grant is Pitt’s business manager and

17 Mondo Bongo’s manager, and Pitt has specifically acknowledged that Grant is a custodian

18 of Pitt’s documents whose records must be searched.

19 Pitt objects to RFP No. 9 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant

20 to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the

21 discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (2007). Evidence

22 is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its

23 case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is

24 sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.”

25 Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See also John B.

26 v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if it might

27 reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

28

-33- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pitt’s communications with Grant about the USAO’s investigation into Pitt are

2 highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand

3 for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her

4 interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this

5 theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity

6 by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically places the NDA at issue in

7 paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the

8 deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present

9 evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their

10 children. Pitt’s communications with Grant about the USAO’s investigation and evaluation

11 of charges that could be brought against Pitt may contain powerful and candid admissions

12 that will assist Jolie in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and affirmative
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 defenses to trial. Jolie is entitled to receive this evidence.

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 9 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by the

15 right of privacy under the California Constitution. This is a meritless and even dangerous

16 assertion. As an initial matter, the notion that one who assaults his partner and their

17 children has a right of privacy in that conduct is wholly unsupported by any case law. Pitt

18 cannot be correct, for domestic abusers are prosecuted routinely for physically abusing their

19 partners and children. The right of privacy does not insulate such conduct from

20 prosecution. And it does not insulate that same conduct from discovery in this civil case

21 where Pitt placed that conduct squarely at issue by demanding a draconian NDA designed

22 to bury it.

23 A “court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely

24 assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046

25 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be

26 specifically identified and carefully comparted with competing our countervailing privacy

27 and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7

28 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party

-34- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective

2 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing

3 party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

4 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

5 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

6 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

7 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

8 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

9 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

10 of their deal when Jolie refused.

11 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her

12 answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses.

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evide nce.
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Studies confirm that women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

15 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:

16 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167

17 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie not only has the right to collect documentary

18 evidence to prove her case, but these studies counsel that such documentary evidence is

19 essential to establishing domestic violence. The right of privacy in this instance, if any,

20 cannot deprive Jolie of her ability to do so.

21 Pitt also objects that the phrase “decision-making” is vague and ambiguous. But as

22 has been widely reported—and as Pitt himself likes to tout—the USAO ultimately declined

23 to bring charges against Pitt for his abuse of Jolie and their children on the plane . The

24 decision to charge or not to charge is the “decision-making” referenced in the request and

25 there is nothing vague or ambiguous about it.

26 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

27 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

28 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

-35- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 communications with others. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law.

2 Merely because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from

3 someone else does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most

4 direct way for Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Grant is for Pitt to produce them.

5 They are documents within his possession, custody, or control and are relevant to this case.

6 The Court should order him to produce them.

7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

8 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with LIEBMAN regarding the USAO’s investigation into

9 and decision-making about what transpired on the FLIGHT.

10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

11 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

12 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

15 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

16 in this action.

17 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

18 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt also

19 objects to the use of the term “decision-making,” which is vague, ambiguous, and undefined.

20 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide

21 information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of

22 Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

23 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

24 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

25 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

26 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

27 Angeles. The FBI immediately opened an investigation into the matter, and the agent in

28 charge ultimately prepared a statement of probable cause to charge Pitt with a federal

-36- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 offense for referral to the United States Attorneys’ Office (“USAO”) for prosecution. RFP

2 No. 10 seeks Pitt’s communications with Mr. Liebman who, as discussed above, was Pitt’s

3 confidante and talent agent, about the USAO’ investigation into whether to file charges

4 against Pitt. Pitt has specifically acknowledged that Liebman is a custodian of Pitt’s

5 documents whose records must be searched.

6 Pitt objects to RFP No. 10 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

7 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

8 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

9 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

10 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

11 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

12 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

15 Pitt’s communications with Liebman about the USAO’s investigation into Pitt are

16 highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand

17 for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her

18 interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this

19 theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity

20 by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically places the NDA at issue in

21 paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the

22 deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present

23 evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their

24 children. Pitt’s communications with Liebman about the USAO’s investigation and

25 evaluation of charges that could be brought against Pitt may contain powerful and candid

26 admissions that will assist Jolie in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and

27 affirmative defenses to trial. And as discussed above, Liebman had direct communications

28 with DCFS about its investigation, and likely had direct communications with the FBI and

-37- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 USAO as well. Jolie is entitled to receive this evidence.

2 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 10 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

3 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. This is a meritless and even

4 dangerous assertion. As an initial matter, the notion that one who assaults his partner and

5 their children has a right of privacy in that conduct is wholly unsupported by any case law.

6 Pitt cannot be correct, for domestic abusers are prosecuted routinely for physically abusing

7 their partners and children. The right of privacy does not insulate such conduct from

8 prosecution. And it does not insulate that same conduct from discovery in this civil case

9 where Pitt placed that conduct squarely at issue by demanding a draconian NDA designed

10 to bury it.

11 A “court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely

12 assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 specifically identified and carefully comparted with competing our countervailing privacy

15 and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7

16 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party

17 asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective

18 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing

19 party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

20 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

21 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

22 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

23 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

24 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

25 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

26 of their deal when Jolie refused.

27 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her

28 answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses.

-38- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evidence.

2 Studies confirm that women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

3 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:

4 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167

5 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie not only has the right to collect documentary

6 evidence to prove her case, but these studies counsel that such documentary evidence is

7 essential to establishing domestic violence. The right of privacy in this instance, if any,

8 cannot deprive Jolie of her ability to do so.

9 Pitt also objects that the phrase “decision-making” is vague and ambiguous. But as

10 has been widely reported—and as Pitt himself likes to tout—the USAO ultimately declined

11 to bring charges against Pitt for his abuse of Jolie and their children on the plane . The

12 decision to charge or not to charge is the “decision-making” referenced in the request and
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 there is nothing vague or ambiguous about it.

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

15 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

16 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

17 communications with others. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law.

18 Merely because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from

19 someone else does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce the m. Indeed, the most

20 direct way for Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Liebman is for Pitt to produce

21 them. They are documents within his possession, custody, or control and are relevant to

22 this case. The Court should order him to produce them.

23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

24 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with PETT-DONTE regarding the USAO’s investigation

25 into and decision-making about what transpired on the FLIGHT.

26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

27 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

28 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

-39- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

2 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

3 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

4 in this action.

5 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

6 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt also

7 objects to the use of the term “decision-making,” which is vague, ambiguous, and undefined.

8 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide

9 information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of

10 Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

11 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

12 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

15 Angeles. The FBI immediately opened an investigation into the matter, and the agent in

16 charge ultimately prepared a statement of probable cause to charge Pitt with a federal

17 offense for referral to the United States Attorneys’ Office (“USAO”) for prosecution. RFP

18 No. 11 seeks Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante who, as discussed above, was the co-

19 owner of the talent agency that represented Pitt, about the USAO’ investigation into

20 whether to file charges against Pitt.

21 Pitt objects to RFP No. 11 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

22 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

23 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

24 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

25 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

26 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

27 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

28 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

-40- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

2 Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante about the USAO’s investigation into Pitt are

3 highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand

4 for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her

5 interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this

6 theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity

7 by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically places the NDA at issue in

8 paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the

9 deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present

10 evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their

11 children. Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante about the USAO’s investigation and

12 evaluation of charges that could be brought against Pitt may contain powerful and candid
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 admissions that will assist Jolie in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 affirmative defenses to trial. And as discussed above, Pett-Dante’s partner, Mr. Liebman,

15 had direct communications with DCFS about its investigation, and likely had direct

16 communications with the FBI and USAO as well. Jolie has reason to believe Pitt also had

17 communications with Pett-Dante regarding the investigation as well. Jolie is entitled to

18 receive this evidence.

19 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 11 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

20 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. This is a meritless and even

21 dangerous assertion. As an initial matter, the notion that one who assaults his partner and

22 their children has a right of privacy in that conduct is wholly unsupported by any case law.

23 Pitt cannot be correct, for domestic abusers are prosecuted routinely for physically abusing

24 their partners and children. The right of privacy does not insulate such conduct from

25 prosecution. And it does not insulate that same conduct from discovery in this civil case

26 where Pitt placed that conduct squarely at issue by demanding a draconian NDA designed

27 to bury it.

28

-41- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 A “court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely

2 assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046

3 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be

4 specifically identified and carefully comparted with competing our countervailing privacy

5 and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7

6 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party

7 asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective

8 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing

9 party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

10 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

11 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

12 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

15 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

16 of their deal when Jolie refused.

17 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her

18 answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses.

19 Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evide nce.

20 Studies confirm that women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

21 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:

22 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167

23 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie not only has the right to collect documentary

24 evidence to prove her case, but these studies counsel that such documentary evidence is

25 essential to establishing domestic violence. The right of privacy in this instance, if any,

26 cannot deprive Jolie of her ability to do so.

27 Pitt also objects that the phrase “decision-making” is vague and ambiguous. But as

28 has been widely reported—and as Pitt himself likes to tout—the USAO ultimately declined

-42- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 to bring charges against Pitt for his abuse of Jolie and their children on the plane. The

2 decision to charge or not to charge is the “decision-making” referenced in the request and

3 there is nothing vague or ambiguous about it.

4 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

5 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

6 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

7 communications with others. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law.

8 Merely because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from

9 someone else does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce the m. Indeed, the most

10 direct way for Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante is for Pitt to produce

11 them. They are documents within his possession, custody, or control and are relevant to

12 this case. The Court should order him to produce them.

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with PERRIN regarding the USAO’s investigation into

15 and decision-making about what transpired on the FLIGHT.

16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

17 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

18 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

19 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

21 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

22 in this action.

23 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

24 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt also

25 objects to the use of the term “decision-making,” which is vague, ambiguous, and undefined.

26 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide

27 information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of

28 Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

-43- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

2 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

3 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

4 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

5 Angeles. The FBI immediately opened an investigation into the matter, and the agent in

6 charge ultimately prepared a statement of probable cause to charge Pitt with a federal

7 offense for referral to the United States Attorneys’ Office (“USAO”) for prosecution. RFP

8 No. 12 seeks Pitt’s communications with Cross-Defendant Marc Perrin who, as discussed

9 above, is Pitt’s business partner in the Miraval joint venture Miraval Provence. Pitt has

10 specifically acknowledged that Perrin is a custodian of Pitt’s documents whose records

11 must be searched.

12 Pitt objects to RFP No. 12 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

15 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

16 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

17 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

18 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

19 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

20 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

21 Pitt’s communications with Perrin about the USAO’s investigation into Pitt are

22 highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand

23 for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her

24 interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this

25 theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity

26 by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically places the NDA at issue in

27 paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the

28 deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present

-44- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury —his abuse of Jolie and their

2 children. Pitt’s communications with Perrin about the USAO’s investigation and

3 evaluation of charges that could be brought against Pitt may contain powerful and candid

4 admissions that will assist Jolie in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and

5 affirmative defenses to trial. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that the co-owner of a multi-

6 million dollar business venture would not discuss potential criminal charges against him

7 with his business partner. Jolie is entitled to receive this evidence.

8 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 12 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

9 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. This is a meritless and even

10 dangerous assertion. As an initial matter, the notion that one who assaults his partner and

11 their children has a right of privacy in that conduct is wholly unsupported by any case law.

12 Pitt cannot be correct, for domestic abusers are prosecuted routinely for physically abusing
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 their partners and children. The right of privacy does not insulate such conduct from
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 prosecution. And it does not insulate that same conduct from discovery in this civil case

15 where Pitt placed that conduct squarely at issue by demanding a draconian NDA designed

16 to bury it.

17 A “court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely

18 assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046

19 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be

20 specifically identified and carefully comparted with competing our countervailing privacy

21 and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7

22 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party

23 asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective

24 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing

25 party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

26 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

27 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

28 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

-45- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

2 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

3 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

4 of their deal when Jolie refused.

5 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her

6 answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses.

7 Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evide nce.

8 Studies confirm that women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

9 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:

10 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167

11 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie not only has the right to collect documentary

12 evidence to prove her case, but these studies counsel that such documentary evidence is
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 essential to establishing domestic violence. The right of privacy in this instance, if any,
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 cannot deprive Jolie of her ability to do so.

15 Pitt also objects that the phrase “decision-making” is vague and ambiguous. But as

16 has been widely reported—and as Pitt himself likes to tout—the USAO ultimately declined

17 to bring charges against Pitt for his abuse of Jolie and their children on the plane . The

18 decision to charge or not to charge is the “decision-making” referenced in the request and

19 there is nothing vague or ambiguous about it.

20 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

21 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

22 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

23 communications with others. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law.

24 Merely because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from

25 someone else does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce the m. Indeed, the most

26 direct way for Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Perrin is for Pitt to produce them.

27 They are documents within his possession, custody, or control and are relevant to this case.

28 The Court should order him to produce them.

-46- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

2 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with MALCHAR regarding the USAO’s investigation

3 into and decision-making about what transpired on the FLIGHT.

4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

5 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

6 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

7 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

8 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

9 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

10 in this action.

11 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

12 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt also
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 objects to the use of the term “decision-making,” which is vague, ambiguous, and undefined.
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide

15 information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of

16 Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

17 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

18 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

19 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

20 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

21 Angeles. The FBI immediately opened an investigation into the matter, and the agent in

22 charge ultimately prepared a statement of found probable cause to charge Pitt with a federal

23 offense for referral to the United States Attorneys’ Office (“USAO”) for prosecution. RFP

24 No. 13 seeks Pitt’s communications with Mr. Malchar who, as discussed above, was Pitt’s

25 private security guard and personal attendant, about the USAO’s investigation into whether to

26 file charges against Pitt.

27 Pitt objects to RFP No. 13 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

28 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

-47- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

2 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

3 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

4 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

5 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

6 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

7 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

8 Pitt’s communications with Malchar about the USAO’s investigation into Pitt are

9 highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand

10 for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her

11 interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this

12 theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically places the NDA at issue in
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the

15 deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present

16 evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their

17 children. Pitt’s communications with Malchar about the USAO’s investigation and

18 evaluation of charges that could be brought against Pitt may contain powerful and candid

19 admissions that will assist Jolie in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and

20 affirmative defenses to trial. And as discussed above, Malchar had direct communications

21 with DCFS about its investigation, and likely had direct communications with the FBI and

22 USAO as well. Jolie is entitled to receive this evidence.

23 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 13 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

24 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. This is a meritless and even

25 dangerous assertion. As an initial matter, the notion that one who assaults his partner and

26 their children has a right of privacy in that conduct is wholly unsupported by any case law.

27 Pitt cannot be correct, for domestic abusers are prosecuted routinely for physically abusing

28 their partners and children. The right of privacy does not insulate such conduct from

-48- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 prosecution. And it does not insulate that same conduct from discovery in this civil case

2 where Pitt placed that conduct squarely at issue by demanding a draconian NDA designed

3 to bury it.

4 A “court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely

5 assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046

6 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be

7 specifically identified and carefully comparted with competing our countervailing privacy

8 and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7

9 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party

10 asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective

11 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing

12 party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

15 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

16 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

17 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

18 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

19 of their deal when Jolie refused.

20 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her

21 answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses.

22 Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evide nce.

23 Studies confirm that women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

24 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:

25 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167

26 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie not only has the right to collect documentary

27 evidence to prove her case, but these studies counsel that such documentary evidence is

28 essential to establishing domestic violence. The right of privacy in this instance, if any,

-49- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 cannot deprive Jolie of her ability to do so.

2 Pitt also objects that the phrase “decision-making” is vague and ambiguous. But as

3 has been widely reported—and as Pitt himself likes to tout—the USAO ultimately declined

4 to bring charges against Pitt for his abuse of Jolie and their children on the plane . The

5 decision to charge or not to charge is the “decision-making” referenced in the request and

6 there is nothing vague or ambiguous about it.

7 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

8 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

9 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

10 communications with others. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law.

11 Merely because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from

12 someone else does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce the m. Indeed, the most
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 direct way for Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Malchar is for Pitt to produce
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 them. They are documents within his possession, custody, or control and are relevant to

15 this case. The Court should order him to produce them.

16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

17 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with any public relations company from September 14,

18 2016 to February 16, 2022 regarding the USAO’s investigation into and decision-making or

19 actions about what transpired on the FLIGHT.

20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

21 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

22 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

23 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

24 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

25 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

26 in this action.

27 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

28 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt also

-50- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 objects to the use of the term “decision-making,” which is vague, ambiguous, and undefined.

2 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide

3 information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of

4 Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

5 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

6 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

7 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

8 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

9 Angeles. The FBI immediately opened an investigation into the matter, and the agent in

10 charge ultimately prepared a statement of probable cause to charge Pitt with a federal

11 offense for referral to the United States Attorneys’ Office (“USAO”) for prosecution. RFP No.

12 14 seeks Pitt’s communications with public relations companies about the USAO’s
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 investigation into whether to file charges against Pitt.

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Pitt objects to RFP No. 14 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

15 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

16 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

17 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

18 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

19 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

20 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

21 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

22 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

23 Pitt’s communications with PR companies about the USAO’s investigation into Pitt

24 are highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s

25 demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his p urchase of

26 her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes

27 this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a

28 nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically places the NDA at issue

-51- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of

2 the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will

3 present evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury —his abuse of Jolie

4 and their children. Pitt’s communications with a public relations company about the

5 USAO’s investigation will undoubtedly assist Jolie in evaluating and proving her case by

6 revealing what Pitt was telling the media about that investigation. Jolie expects Pitt’s

7 communications to reveal that he was not truthful with public relations companies who

8 worked with Pitt to manage the USAO’s investigation vis-à-vis the public. This

9 untruthfulness is important for Jolie to be able to show at trial because it will underscore

10 how important it was for Pitt to get the NDA from her as part of the Miraval sale. Without

11 it, Pitt would be exposed not just on the fact of his abuse itself, but also for his dishonesty

12 and attempt to cover up his conduct through a public relations campaign built upon
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 falsehoods.
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 However, upon further review, Jolie is willing to limit the time period covered by

15 this request to communications from September 14, 2016 to December 31, 2018.

16 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 14 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

17 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. This is a meritless and even

18 dangerous assertion. As an initial matter, the notion that one who assaults his partner and

19 their children has a right of privacy in that conduct is wholly unsupported by any case law.

20 Pitt cannot be correct, for domestic abusers are prosecuted routinely for physically abusing

21 their partners and children. The right of privacy does not insulate such conduct from

22 prosecution. And it does not insulate that same conduct from discovery in this civil case

23 where Pitt placed that conduct squarely at issue by demanding a draconian NDA designed

24 to bury it.

25 A “court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely

26 assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046

27 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be

28 specifically identified and carefully comparted with competing our countervailing privacy

-52- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7

2 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party

3 asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective

4 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing

5 party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

6 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

7 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

8 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

9 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

10 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

11 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

12 of their deal when Jolie refused.

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses.

15 Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evide nce.

16 Studies confirm that women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

17 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:

18 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167

19 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie not only has the right to collect documentary

20 evidence to prove her case, but these studies counsel that such documentary evidence is

21 essential to establishing domestic violence. The right of privacy in this instance, if any,

22 cannot deprive Jolie of her ability to do so.

23 Pitt also objects that the phrase “decision-making” is vague and ambiguous. But as

24 has been widely reported—and as Pitt himself likes to tout—the USAO ultimately declined

25 to bring charges against Pitt for his abuse of Jolie and their children on the plane . The

26 decision to charge or not to charge is the “decision-making” referenced in the request and

27 there is nothing vague or ambiguous about it.

28

-53- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

2 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

3 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

4 communications with others. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law.

5 Merely because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from

6 someone else does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce the m. Indeed, the most

7 direct way for Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with public relations companies is for

8 Pitt to produce them. They are documents within his possession, custody, or control and

9 are relevant to this case. The Court should order him to produce them.

10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

11 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with DCFS regarding the FLIGHT.

12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

15 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

16 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

17 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

18 in this action.

19 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

20 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

21 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

22 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

23 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

24 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

25 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

26 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

27 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

28 Angeles. DCFS immediately opened an investigation into the matter. As part of that

-54- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 investigation, DCFS required the implementation of a safety plan and for Pitt to undergo

2 alcohol testing. RFP No. 15 seeks Pitt’s communications with DCFS during the course of

3 its investigation and subsequent remediation efforts.

4 Pitt objects to RFP No. 15 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

5 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

6 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

7 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

8 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

9 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

10 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

11 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

12 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Pitt’s communications with DCFS about his abuse of Jolie and their children are
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand

15 for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her

16 interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this

17 theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity

18 by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue in

19 paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the

20 deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present

21 evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their

22 children. Pitt’s communications with DCFS regarding these issues are powerful evidence

23 of what Pitt was hoping to bury with the NDA and will strongly support Jolie’s Cross-

24 Complaint and affirmative defenses.

25 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 15 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

26 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

27 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

28 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

-55- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

2 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

3 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

4 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

5 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

6 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

7 531, 557 (2017).

8 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

9 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

10 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

11 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

12 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 of their deal when Jolie refused.

15 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her

16 answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses.

17 Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evide nce.

18 As discussed above, women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

19 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:

20 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167

21 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary evidence to prove her

22 points. Pitt’s communications with DCFS will likely contain candid admissions from Pitt

23 about the conduct he admitted to engaging in, and that evidence will greatly assist Jolie in

24 evaluating her case and bringing it to trial.

25 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to Jolie,

26 either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First, this

27 is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

28 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

-56- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

2 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

3 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with the DCFS is for Pitt to produce them. Pitt’s

4 communications are not publicly available. They are documents within his possession,

5 custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this case, and Pitt has a duty to produce

6 them.

7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

8 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with GRANT regarding DCFS’s investigation into what

9 transpired on the FLIGHT.

10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

11 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

12 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

15 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

16 in this action.

17 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

18 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

19 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

20 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

21 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

22 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

23 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

24 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

25 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

26 Angeles. DCFS immediately opened an investigation into the matter. As part of that

27 investigation, DCFS required the implementation of a safety plan and for Pitt to undergo

28 alcohol testing. RFP No. 16 seeks Pitt’s communications with Grant who, as discussed

-57- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 above, was Pitt’s business manager and the manager of Mondo Bongo, about DCFS’s

2 investigation and subsequent remediation efforts. Pitt has specifically acknowledged that

3 Grant is a custodian of Pitt’s documents whose records must be searched.

4 Pitt objects to RFP No. 16 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

5 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

6 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

7 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

8 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

9 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

10 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

11 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

12 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Pitt’s communications with Grant about the DCFS’s investigation into Pitt are
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand

15 for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her

16 interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this

17 theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity

18 by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically places the NDA at issue in

19 paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the

20 deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present

21 evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their

22 children. Pitt’s communications with Grant about the DCFS’s investigation and remedial

23 efforts it required of Pitt may contain powerful and candid admissions that will assist Jolie

24 in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and affirmative defenses to trial.

25 Jolie is entitled to receive this evidence.

26 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 16 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

27 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

28 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

-58- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

2 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

3 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

4 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

5 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

6 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

7 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

8 531, 557 (2017).

9 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

10 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

11 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

12 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

15 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

16 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

17 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

18 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic

19 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

20 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

21 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

22 evidence to prove her points.

23 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

24 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

25 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

26 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

27 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

28 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

-59- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Grant is for Pitt to produce them. They are

2 documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

3 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

5 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with LIEBMAN regarding DCFS’s investigation into

6 what transpired on the FLIGHT.

7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

8 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

9 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

10 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

11 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

12 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 in this action.
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

15 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

16 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

17 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

18 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

19 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

20 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

21 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

22 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

23 Angeles. DCFS immediately opened an investigation into the matter. As part of that

24 investigation, DCFS required the implementation of a safety plan and for Pitt to undergo

25 alcohol testing. RFP No. 17 seeks Pitt’s communications with Liebman who, as discussed

26 above, was Pitt’s agent and confidante, about DCFS’s investigation and subsequent

27 remediation efforts. Pitt has specifically acknowledged that Liebman is a custodian of

28 Pitt’s documents whose records must be searched.

-60- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pitt objects to RFP No. 17 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

2 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

3 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

4 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

5 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

6 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

7 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

8 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

9 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

10 Pitt’s communications with Liebman about the DCFS’s investigation into Pitt are

11 highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand

12 for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity

15 by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically places the NDA at issue in

16 paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the

17 deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present

18 evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their

19 children. Pitt’s communications with Liebman about the DCFS’s investigation and

20 remedial efforts it required of Pitt may contain powerful and candid admissions that will

21 assist Jolie in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and affirmative defenses

22 to trial. In fact, Liebman himself had direct communications with DCFS, further

23 underscoring the relevance of his communications with Pitt about the DCFS investigation.

24 Jolie is entitled to receive this evidence.

25 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 17 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

26 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

27 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

28 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

-61- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

2 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

3 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

4 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

5 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

6 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

7 531, 557 (2017).

8 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

9 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

10 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

11 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

12 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

15 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

16 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

17 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic

18 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

19 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

20 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

21 evidence to prove her points.

22 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

23 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

24 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

25 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

26 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

27 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

28 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Liebman is for Pitt to produce them. They are

-62- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

2 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

4 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with PETT-DONTE regarding DCFS’s investigation into

5 what transpired on the FLIGHT.

6 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

7 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

8 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

9 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

11 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

12 in this action.
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

15 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

16 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

17 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

18 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

19 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

20 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

21 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

22 Angeles. DCFS immediately opened an investigation into the matter. As part of that

23 investigation, DCFS required the implementation of a safety plan and for Pitt to undergo

24 alcohol testing. RFP No. 18 seeks Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante who, as

25 discussed above, is one of the partners of the talent agency that helped manage Pitt, about

26 DCFS’s investigation and subsequent remediation efforts.

27 Pitt objects to RFP No. 18 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

28 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

-63- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

2 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

3 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

4 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

5 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

6 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (“evidence is discoverable “if

7 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

8 Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante about the DCFS’s investigation into Pitt are

9 highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand

10 for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her

11 interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this

12 theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically places the NDA at issue in
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the

15 deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present

16 evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their

17 children. Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante about the DCFS’s investigation and

18 remedial efforts it required of Pitt may contain powerful and candid admissions that will

19 assist Jolie in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and affirmative defenses

20 to trial. And as discussed above, Pett-Dante’s partner, Liebman, had direct

21 communications with DCFS. Given the nature of their relationships, Jolie expects there are

22 communications between some combination of Liebman, Pitt, and Pett-Dante about the

23 DCFS investigation. If there are, Jolie is entitled to receive this evidence.

24 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 18 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

25 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

26 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

27 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

28 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

-64- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

2 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

3 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

4 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

5 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

6 531, 557 (2017).

7 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

8 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

9 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

10 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

11 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

12 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

15 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

16 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic

17 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

18 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

19 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

20 evidence to prove her points.

21 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

22 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

23 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

24 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

25 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

26 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

27 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante is for Pitt to produce them. They are

28 documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

-65- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

2 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:

3 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with PERRIN regarding DCFS’s investigation into what

4 transpired on the FLIGHT.

5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:

6 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

7 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

8 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

9 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

10 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

11 in this action.

12 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

15 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

16 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

17 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

18 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

19 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

20 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

21 Angeles. DCFS immediately opened an investigation into the matter. As part of that

22 investigation, DCFS required the implementation of a safety plan and for Pitt to undergo

23 alcohol testing. RFP No. 19 seeks Pitt’s communications with Perrin about DCFS’s

24 investigation and subsequent remediation efforts.

25 Pitt objects to RFP No. 19 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

26 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

27 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

28 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

-66- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

2 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

3 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

4 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

5 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

6 Pitt’s communications with Perrin about the DCFS’s investigation into Pitt are

7 highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand

8 for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her

9 interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this

10 theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity

11 by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically places the NDA at issue in

12 paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their

15 children. Pitt’s communications with Perrin about the DCFS’s investigation and remedial

16 efforts it required of Pitt may contain powerful and candid admissions that will assist Jolie

17 in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and affirmative defenses to trial.

18 And as discussed above, Perrin is Pitt’s partner in the Miraval joint venture and friend.

19 Under these circumstances, there are likely to be communications between them about the

20 DCFS investigation. If there are, Jolie is entitled to receive this evidence.

21 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 19 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

22 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

23 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

24 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

25 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

26 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

27 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

28 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

-67- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

2 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

3 531, 557 (2017).

4 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

5 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

6 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

7 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

8 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

9 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

10 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

11 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

12 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

15 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

16 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

17 evidence to prove her points.

18 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

19 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

20 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

21 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

22 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

23 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

24 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Perrin is for Pitt to produce them. They are

25 documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

26 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

27

28

-68- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:

2 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with MALCHAR regarding DCFS’s investigation into

3 what transpired on the FLIGHT.

4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:

5 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

6 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

7 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

8 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

9 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

10 in this action.

11 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

12 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

15 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

16 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

17 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

18 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

19 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

20 Angeles. DCFS immediately opened an investigation into the matter. As part of that

21 investigation, DCFS required the implementation of a safety plan and for Pitt to undergo

22 alcohol testing. RFP No. 20 seeks Pitt’s communications with Malchar about DCFS’s

23 investigation and subsequent remediation efforts. As discussed above, Malchar provi ded

24 private security for Pitt and was a personal attendant to him.

25 Pitt objects to RFP No. 20 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

26 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

27 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

28 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

-69- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

2 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

3 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

4 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

5 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

6 Pitt’s communications with Malchar about the DCFS’s investigation into Pitt are

7 highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand

8 for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her

9 interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this

10 theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity

11 by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically places the NDA at issue in

12 paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their

15 children. Pitt’s communications with Malchar about the DCFS’s may contain powerful and

16 candid admissions that will assist Jolie in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-

17 claim and affirmative defenses to trial. And as discussed above, Malchar had direct

18 communications with DCFS. So there must certainly be internal communications between

19 Malchar and Pitt about DCFS. Jolie is entitled to receive this evidence.

20 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 20 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

21 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

22 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

23 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

24 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

25 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

26 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

27 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

28 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

-70- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

2 531, 557 (2017).

3 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

4 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

5 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

6 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

7 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

8 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

9 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

10 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

11 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

12 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

15 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

16 evidence to prove her points.

17 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

18 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

19 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

20 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

21 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

22 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

23 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Malchar is for Pitt to produce them. They are

24 documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

25 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:

27 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with any public relations company from September 14,

28 2016 to February 16, 2022 regarding DCFS’s investigation into what transpired on the FLIGHT.

-71- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:

2 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

3 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

4 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

5 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

6 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

7 in this action.

8 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

9 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

10 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

11 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

12 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

15 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

16 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

17 Angeles. DCFS immediately opened an investigation into the matter. As part of that

18 investigation, DCFS required the implementation of a safety plan and for Pitt to undergo

19 alcohol testing. RFP No. 21 seeks Pitt’s communications with any public relations

20 companies about DCFS’s investigation and subsequent remediation efforts.

21 Pitt objects to RFP No. 21 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

22 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

23 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

24 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

25 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

26 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

27 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

28 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

-72- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

2 Pitt’s communications with PR companies about the DCFS’s investigation into Pitt

3 are highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s

4 demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his p urchase of

5 her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes

6 this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a

7 nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically places the NDA at issue

8 in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of

9 the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.)

10 Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present evidence of

11 the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children.

12 Pitt’s communications with a public relations company about the DCFS’s investig ation will
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 undoubtedly assist Jolie in evaluating and proving her case by revealing what Pitt was
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 telling the media about that investigation. Jolie expects that Pitt’s communications will

15 reveal that he was not truthful with public relations companies who worked with Pitt to

16 manage the DCFS’s investigation vis-à-vis the public. This untruthfulness is important for

17 Jolie to be able to show at trial because it will underscore how important it was for Pitt to

18 get the NDA from her as part of the Miraval sale. Without it, Pitt would be exposed not

19 just on the fact of his abuse itself, but also for his dishonesty and attempt to cover up his

20 conduct through a public relations campaign built upon falsehoods.

21 Upon further review, however, Jolie is willing to limit the time period covered by

22 this request to communications from September 14, 2016 through December 31, 2018.

23 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 21 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

24 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

25 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

26 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

27 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

28 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

-73- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

2 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

3 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

4 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

5 531, 557 (2017).

6 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

7 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

8 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

9 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

10 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

11 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

12 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

15 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic

16 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

17 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

18 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

19 evidence to prove her points.

20 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

21 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

22 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

23 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

24 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

25 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

26 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with PR companies is for Pitt to produce them. They

27 are documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

28 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

-74- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:

2 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with DCFS regarding random drug and alcohol testing.

3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:

4 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

5 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

6 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

7 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

8 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

9 in this action.

10 Pitt also objects to the use of the term “random drug and alcohol testing,” which is

11 vague, ambiguous, and undefined. Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks

12 documents protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right of privacy
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 under the Constitution of the State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

15 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

16 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

17 Angeles. DCFS immediately opened an investigation into the matter. As part of

18 concluding that investigation, DCFS required Pitt to undergo random drug and alcohol

19 testing. RFP No. 22 seeks Pitt’s communications with DCFS specifically concerning this

20 requirement imposed by DCFS.

21 Pitt objects to RFP No. 22 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

22 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

23 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

24 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

25 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

26 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

27 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

28 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

-75- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

2 Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA.

3 Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of

4 covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that

5 the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal

6 three weeks later). Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the

7 SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie

8 disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying

9 misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s

10 communications with DCFS may contain powerful and candid admissions, especially

11 considering that he agreed to undergo drug and alcohol testing as a result of DCFS’s

12 investigation. DCFS required Pitt to undergo this testing for a reason. Pitt’s direct
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 communications with DCFS on these points may contain important admissions to support
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Jolie’s Cross-Complaint and affirmative defenses.

15 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 22 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

16 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. But Pitt does not have a privacy

17 interest government action taken against him in response to his abuse of his wife and their

18 children. The DCFS both investigated Pitt’s conduct and required him to undergo remedial

19 measures to address it, and Pitt’s supposed right to privacy was no bar to DCFS’s

20 consideration of Pitt’s actions. So too here.

21 A “court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely

22 assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046

23 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be

24 specifically identified and carefully comparted with competing our countervailing privacy

25 and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7

26 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party

27 asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective

28 invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing

-76- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

2 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

3 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

4 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

5 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

6 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

7 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

8 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

9 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

10 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

11 defenses with admissible evidence. As discussed above, women who claim to be the

12 victims of domestic violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect

15 documentary evidence to prove her points.

16 Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to Jolie, either

17 publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First, this is

18 blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

19 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

20 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

21 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

22 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with the DCFS about the drug and alcohol testing

23 DCFS required of him is for Pitt to produce the documents. Pitt’s communications are not

24 publicly available. They are documents within his possession, custody, or control, the

25 documents are relevant to this case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

26 Finally, Pitt objects to RFP No. 22 on the ground that the term “random drug and

27 alcohol testing” is undefined and therefor vague and ambiguous. This objection is

28 meritless. The phrase “random drug and alcohol testing” means exactly what it says.

-77- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Millions of Americans are subject to such testing, including as a condition of their

2 employment. It is a simple and readily understood phrase. Moreover, Pitt knows exactly

3 what he agreed to with DCFS, so the notion that Pitt is somehow confused by these words

4 is disingenuous at best.

5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:

6 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with GRANT regarding DCFS’s random drug and

7 alcohol testing.

8 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:

9 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

10 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

11 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

12 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 in this action.

15 Pitt also objects to the use of the term “random drug and alcohol testing,” which is

16 vague, ambiguous, and undefined. Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks

17 documents protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right of privacy

18 under the Constitution of the State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

19 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

20 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

21 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

22 Angeles. The Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) immediately opened

23 an investigation into the matter. As part of that investigation, DCFS required Pitt to

24 undergo random drug and alcohol testing. RFP No. 23 seeks Pitt’s communications with

25 Grant about this random drug and alcohol testing. Pitt has specifically acknowledged that

26 Grant is a custodian of Pitt’s documents whose records must be searched.

27 Pitt objects to RFP No. 23 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

28 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

-78- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

2 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

3 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

4 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

5 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

6 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

7 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

8 Pitt’s communications with Grant about the DCFS’s requirement that Pitt undergo

9 random drug and alcohol testing are highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the

10 Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is

11 that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse

12 of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a

15 “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to

16 present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying misconduct that

17 Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s communications with Grant

18 about why Pitt had to undergo this testing may contain powerful and candid admissions that

19 will assist Jolie in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and affirmative

20 defenses to trial. Jolie is entitled to receive this evidence.

21 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 23 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

22 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

23 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

24 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

25 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

26 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

27 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

28 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

-79- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

2 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

3 531, 557 (2017).

4 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

5 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

6 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

7 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

8 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

9 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

10 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

11 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

12 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

15 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

16 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

17 evidence to prove her points.

18 Pitt objects to RFP No. 23 on the ground that the term “random drug and alcohol

19 testing” is undefined and therefor vague and ambiguous. This objection is meritless. The

20 phrase “random drug and alcohol testing” means exactly what it says. Millions of

21 Americans are subject to such testing, including as a condition of their employment. It is a

22 simple and readily understood phrase. Moreover, Pitt knows exactly what he agreed to

23 with DCFS, so the notion that Pitt is somehow confused by these words is dising enuous at

24 best.

25 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

26 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

27 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

28 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

-80- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

2 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

3 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Grant is for Pitt to produce them. They are

4 documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

5 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:

7 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with LIEBMAN regarding DCFS’s random drug and

8 alcohol testing.

9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:

10 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

11 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

12 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

15 in this action.

16 Pitt also objects to the use of the term “random drug and alcohol testing,” which is

17 vague, ambiguous, and undefined. Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks

18 documents protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right of privacy

19 under the Constitution of the State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

20 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

21 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

22 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

23 Angeles. The Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) immediately opened

24 an investigation into the matter. As part of that investigation, DCFS required Pitt to

25 undergo random drug and alcohol testing. RFP No. 24 seeks Pitt’s communications with

26 Liebman about this random drug and alcohol testing. Pitt has specifically acknow ledged

27 that Liebman is a custodian of Pitt’s documents whose records must be searched.

28

-81- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pitt objects to RFP No. 24 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

2 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

3 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

4 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

5 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

6 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

7 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

8 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

9 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

10 Pitt’s communications with Liebman about the DCFS’s requirement that Pitt

11 undergo random drug and alcohol testing are highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that

12 the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a

15 custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He

16 specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a

17 “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to

18 present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying misconduct that

19 Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s communications with

20 Liebman about why Pitt had to undergo this testing may contain powerful and candid

21 admissions that will assist Jolie in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and

22 affirmative defenses to trial. Jolie is entitled to receive this evidence.

23 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 24 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

24 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

25 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

26 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

27 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

28 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

-82- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

2 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

3 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

4 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

5 531, 557 (2017).

6 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

7 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

8 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

9 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

10 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

11 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

12 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

15 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic

16 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

17 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

18 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

19 evidence to prove her points.

20 Pitt objects to RFP No. 24 on the ground that the term “random drug and alcohol

21 testing” is undefined and therefor vague and ambiguous. This objection is meritless. The

22 phrase “random drug and alcohol testing” means exactly what it says. Millions of

23 Americans are subject to such testing, including as a condition of their employment. It is a

24 simple and readily understood phrase. Moreover, Pitt knows exactly what he agreed to

25 with DCFS, so the notion that Pitt is somehow confused by these words is dising enuous at

26 best.

27 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

28 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

-83- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

2 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

3 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a thir d party

4 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

5 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Liebman is for Pitt to produce them. They are

6 documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

7 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:

9 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with PETT-DONTE regarding DCFS’s random drug and

10 alcohol testing.

11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:

12 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

15 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

16 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

17 in this action.

18 Pitt also objects to the use of the term “random drug and alcohol testing,” which is

19 vague, ambiguous, and undefined. Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks

20 documents protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right of privacy

21 under the Constitution of the State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

22 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

23 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

24 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

25 Angeles. The Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) immediately opened

26 an investigation into the matter. As part of that investigation, DCFS required Pitt to

27 undergo random drug and alcohol testing. RFP No. 25 seeks Pitt’s communications with

28 Pett-Dante about this random drug and alcohol testing.

-84- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pitt objects to RFP No. 25 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

2 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

3 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

4 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

5 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

6 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

7 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

8 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

9 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

10 Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante about the DCFS’s requirement that Pitt

11 undergo random drug and alcohol testing are highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that

12 the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a

15 custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He

16 specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a

17 “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to

18 present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying misconduct that

19 Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s communications with Pett-

20 Dante about why Pitt had to undergo this testing may contain powerful and candid

21 admissions that will assist Jolie in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and

22 affirmative defenses to trial. Jolie is entitled to receive this evidence.

23 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 25 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

24 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

25 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

26 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

27 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

28 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

-85- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

2 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

3 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

4 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

5 531, 557 (2017).

6 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

7 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

8 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

9 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

10 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

11 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

12 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

15 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic

16 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

17 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

18 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

19 evidence to prove her points.

20 Pitt objects to RFP No. 25 on the ground that the term “random drug and alcohol

21 testing” is undefined and therefor vague and ambiguous. This objection is meritless. The

22 phrase “random drug and alcohol testing” means exactly what it says. Millions of

23 Americans are subject to such testing, including as a condition of their employment. It is a

24 simple and readily understood phrase. Moreover, Pitt knows exactly what he agreed to

25 with DCFS, so the notion that Pitt is somehow confused by these words is dising enuous at

26 best.

27 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

28 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

-86- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

2 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

3 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a thir d party

4 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

5 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante is for Pitt to produce them. They are

6 documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

7 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:

9 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with PERRIN regarding DCFS’s random drug and

10 alcohol testing.

11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:

12 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

15 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

16 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

17 in this action.

18 Pitt also objects to the use of the term “random drug and alcohol testing,” which is

19 vague, ambiguous, and undefined. Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks

20 documents protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right of privacy

21 under the Constitution of the State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

22 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

23 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

24 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

25 Angeles. The Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) immediately opened

26 an investigation into the matter. As part of that investigation, DCFS required Pitt to

27 undergo random drug and alcohol testing. RFP No. 26 seeks Pitt’s communications with

28 Perrin about this random drug and alcohol testing.

-87- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pitt objects to RFP No. 26 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

2 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

3 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

4 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

5 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

6 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

7 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

8 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

9 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

10 Pitt’s communications with Perrin about the DCFS’s requirement that Pitt undergo

11 random drug and alcohol testing are highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the

12 Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a

15 custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He

16 specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a

17 “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to

18 present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying misconduct that

19 Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s communications with Perrin

20 about why Pitt had to undergo this testing—especially as the owner of a winery—may

21 contain powerful and candid admissions that will assist Jolie in evaluating her defense and

22 bringing her cross-claim and affirmative defenses to trial. Jolie is entitled to receive this

23 evidence.

24 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 26 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

25 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

26 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

27 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

28 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

-88- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

2 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

3 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

4 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

5 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

6 531, 557 (2017).

7 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

8 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

9 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

10 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

11 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

12 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

15 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

16 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic

17 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

18 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

19 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

20 evidence to prove her points.

21 Pitt objects to RFP No. 26 on the ground that the term “random drug and alcohol

22 testing” is undefined and therefor vague and ambiguous. This objection is meritless. The

23 phrase “random drug and alcohol testing” means exactly what it says. Millions of

24 Americans are subject to such testing, including as a condition of their employment. It is a

25 simple and readily understood phrase. Moreover, Pitt knows exactly what he agreed to

26 with DCFS, so the notion that Pitt is somehow confused by these words is dising enuous at

27 best.

28

-89- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

2 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

3 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

4 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

5 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

6 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

7 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Perrin is for Pitt to produce them. They are

8 documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

9 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:

11 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with MALCHAR regarding DCFS’s random drug and

12 alcohol testing.
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

15 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

16 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

17 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

18 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

19 in this action.

20 Pitt also objects to the use of the term “random drug and alcohol testing,” which is

21 vague, ambiguous, and undefined. Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks

22 documents protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right of privacy

23 under the Constitution of the State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

24 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

25 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

26 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

27 Angeles. The Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) immediately opened

28 an investigation into the matter. As part of that investigation, DCFS required Pitt to

-90- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 undergo random drug and alcohol testing. RFP No. 27 seeks Pitt’s communications with

2 Malchar about this random drug and alcohol testing.

3 Pitt objects to RFP No. 27 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

4 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

5 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

6 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

7 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

8 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

9 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

10 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

11 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

12 Pitt’s communications with Malchar about the DCFS’s requirement that Pitt undergo
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 random drug and alcohol testing are highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the cas e is

15 that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse

16 of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a

17 custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He

18 specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a

19 “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to

20 present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying misconduct that

21 Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s communications with

22 Malchar about why Pitt had to undergo this testing may contain powerful and candid

23 admissions that will assist Jolie in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and

24 affirmative defenses to trial. Jolie is entitled to receive this evidence.

25 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 27 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

26 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

27 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

28 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

-91- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

2 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

3 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

4 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

5 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

6 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

7 531, 557 (2017).

8 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

9 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

10 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

11 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

12 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

15 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

16 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

17 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic

18 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

19 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

20 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

21 evidence to prove her points.

22 Pitt objects to RFP No. 27 on the ground that the term “random drug and alcohol

23 testing” is undefined and therefor vague and ambiguous. This objection is meritless. The

24 phrase “random drug and alcohol testing” means exactly what it says. Millions of

25 Americans are subject to such testing, including as a condition of their employment. It is a

26 simple and readily understood phrase. Moreover, Pitt knows exactly what he agreed to

27 with DCFS, so the notion that Pitt is somehow confused by these words is dising enuous at

28 best.

-92- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

2 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

3 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

4 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

5 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

6 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

7 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Malchar is for Pitt to produce them. They are

8 documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

9 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:

11 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with any public relations company from September 14,

12 2016 to February 16, 2022 regarding DCFS’s random drug and alcohol testing.
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

15 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

16 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

17 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

18 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

19 in this action.

20 Pitt also objects to the use of the term “random drug and alcohol testing,” which is

21 vague, ambiguous, and undefined. Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks

22 documents protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right of privacy

23 under the Constitution of the State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

24 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

25 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

26 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

27 Angeles. The Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) immediately opened

28 an investigation into the matter. As part of that investigation, DCFS required Pitt to

-93- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 undergo random drug and alcohol testing. RFP No. 28 seeks Pitt’s communications with

2 PR companies about this random drug and alcohol testing.

3 Pitt objects to RFP No. 28 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

4 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

5 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

6 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

7 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

8 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

9 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

10 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

11 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

12 Pitt’s communications with PR companies about the DCFS’s requirement that Pitt
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 undergo random drug and alcohol testing are highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is

15 that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse

16 of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a

17 custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He

18 specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a

19 “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to

20 present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying misconduct that

21 Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s communications with a

22 public relations company about the DCFS’s investigation will undoubtedly assist Jolie in

23 evaluating and proving her case by revealing what Pitt was telling the media about that

24 investigation. Jolie expects that Pitt’s communications will reveal that he was not truthful

25 with public relations companies who worked with Pitt to manage the DCFS’s investigation

26 vis-à-vis the public. This untruthfulness is important for Jolie to be able to show at trial

27 because it will underscore how important it was for Pitt to get the NDA from her as part of

28 the Miraval sale. Without it, Pitt would be exposed not just on the fact of his abuse itself,

-94- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 but also for his dishonesty and attempt to cover up his conduct through a public relations

2 campaign built upon falsehoods.

3 Upon further review, however, Jolie is willing to limit the time period covered by

4 this request to communications from September 14, 2016, through December 31, 2018.

5 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 28 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

6 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

7 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

8 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

9 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

10 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

11 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

12 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

15 531, 557 (2017).

16 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

17 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

18 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

19 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

20 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

21 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

22 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

23 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

24 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

25 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic

26 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

27 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

28 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

-95- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 evidence to prove her points.

2 Pitt objects to RFP No. 28 on the ground that the term “random drug and alcohol

3 testing” is undefined and therefor vague and ambiguous. This objection is meritless. The

4 phrase “random drug and alcohol testing” means exactly what it says. Millions of

5 Americans are subject to such testing, including as a condition of their employment. It is a

6 simple and readily understood phrase. Moreover, Pitt knows exactly what he agreed to

7 with DCFS, so the notion that Pitt is somehow confused by these words is dising enuous at

8 best.

9 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

10 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

11 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

12 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

15 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with PR companies is for Pitt to produce them. They

16 are documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

17 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:

19 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with DCFS regarding the SAFETY PLAN.

20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:

21 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

22 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

23 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

24 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

25 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

26 in this action.

27 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and

28 provide information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession

-96- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 of Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is

2 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Pitt further objects to this Request to the

3 extent it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right

4 of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

5 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

6 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

7 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

8 Angeles. DCFS immediately opened an investigation into the matter. As part of that

9 investigation, Pitt agreed to a safety plan for the children. RFP No. 29 seeks Pitt’s

10 communications with DCFS specifically concerning this requirement imposed by DCFS

11 during its investigation.

12 Pitt objects to RFP No. 29 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

15 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

16 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

17 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

18 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

19 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

20 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

21 Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA.

22 Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of

23 covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that

24 the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal

25 three weeks later). Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the

26 SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie

27 disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying

28 misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s

-97- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 communications with DCFS may contain powerful and candid admissions, especially

2 considering that Pitt agreed to the safety plan during DCFS’s investigation. DCFS required

3 the safety plan for a reason. Pitt’s direct communications with DCFS on these points may

4 contain important admissions to support Jolie’s Cross-Complaint and affirmative defenses.

5 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 29 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

6 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

7 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

8 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

9 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

10 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

11 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

12 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

15 531, 557 (2017).

16 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

17 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

18 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

19 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

20 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

21 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

22 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

23 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public

24 policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses

25 with admissible evidence. As discussed above, women who claim to be the victims of

26 domestic violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa

27 Goodman, Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and

28 Dismissing Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect

-98- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 documentary evidence to prove her points. Communications with DCFS concerning a

2 remedy Pitt voluntarily agreed to is powerful evidence of the conduct Pitt was hoping to

3 bury with the NDA.

4 Pitt’s boilerplate objection that the request seeks documents protected by the

5 physician/patient privilege fares no better. The request on its face seeks communications

6 with DCFS—not with any person covered by the person covered by the physician/patient

7 privilege.

8 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

9 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

10 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

11 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

12 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with the DCFS about the drug and alcohol testing

15 DCFS required of him is for Pitt to produce the documents. Pitt’s communications are not

16 publicly available. They are documents within his possession, custody, or control, the

17 documents are relevant to this case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:

19 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with GRANT regarding the SAFETY PLAN.

20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:

21 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

22 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

23 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

24 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

25 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

26 in this action.

27 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and

28 provide information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession

-99- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 of Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is

2 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Pitt further objects to this Request to the

3 extent it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right

4 of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

5 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

6 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

7 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

8 Angeles. The Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) immediately opened

9 an investigation into the matter. As part of that investigation, Pitt agreed to a safety plan.

10 RFP No. 30 seeks Pitt’s communications with Grant about this safety plan.

11 Pitt objects to RFP No. 30 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

12 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

15 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

16 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

17 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

18 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

19 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

20 Pitt’s communications with Grant about the DCFS’s requirement that Pitt stipulate

21 to a safety plan are highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart

22 over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his

23 purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family.

24 Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was

25 rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically places the

26 NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie

27 backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the

28 jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his

-100- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s communications with Grant about why Pitt agreed

2 to this safety plan may contain powerful and candid admissions that will assist Jolie in

3 evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and affirmative defenses to trial. Jolie

4 is entitled to receive this evidence.

5 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 30 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

6 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

7 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

8 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

9 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

10 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

11 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

12 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

15 531, 557 (2017).

16 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

17 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

18 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

19 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

20 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

21 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

22 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

23 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

24 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

25 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic

26 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

27 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

28 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

-101- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 evidence to prove her points.

2 Pitt’s boilerplate objection that the request seeks documents protected by the

3 physician/patient privilege fares no better. The request on its face seeks communications

4 with Grant—not with any person covered by the person covered by the physician/patient

5 privilege.

6 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

7 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

8 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

9 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

10 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

11 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

12 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Grant is for Pitt to produce them. They are
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:

16 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with LIEBMAN regarding the SAFETY PLAN.

17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:

18 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

19 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

20 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

21 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

22 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

23 in this action.

24 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and

25 provide information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession

26 of Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is

27 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Pitt further objects to this Request to the

28 extent it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right

-102- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

2 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

3 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

4 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

5 Angeles. The Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) immediately opened

6 an investigation into the matter. As part of that investigation, Pitt agreed to a safety plan.

7 RFP No. 31 seeks Pitt’s communications with Liebman about this safety plan.

8 Pitt objects to RFP No. 31 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

9 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

10 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

11 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

12 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

15 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

16 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

17 Pitt’s communications with Liebman about the DCFS’s requirement that Pitt

18 stipulate to a safety plan are highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal

19 fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped

20 to use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her

21 family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling

22 (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically

23 places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason

24 for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory

25 to the jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to

26 bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s communications with Liebman about

27 why Pitt agreed to this safety plan may contain powerful and candid admissions that will

28 assist Jolie in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and affirmative defenses

-103- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 to trial. This is especially true given that Liebman had direct communications with DCFS

2 about its investigation. Jolie is entitled to receive this evidence.

3 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 31 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

4 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

5 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

6 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

7 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

8 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

9 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

10 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

11 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

12 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 531, 557 (2017).

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

15 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

16 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

17 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

18 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

19 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

20 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

21 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

22 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

23 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic

24 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

25 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

26 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

27 evidence to prove her points.

28

-104- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pitt’s boilerplate objection that the request seeks documents protected by the

2 physician/patient privilege fares no better. The request on its face seeks communications

3 with Liebman—not with any person covered by the person covered by the physician/patient

4 privilege.

5 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

6 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

7 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

8 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

9 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

10 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

11 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Liebman is for Pitt to produce them. They are

12 documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:

15 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with PETT-DONTE regarding the SAFETY PLAN.

16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:

17 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

18 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

19 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

21 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

22 in this action.

23 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and

24 provide information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession

25 of Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is

26 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Pitt further objects to this Request to the

27 extent it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right

28 of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

-105- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

2 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

3 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

4 Angeles. The Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) immediately opened

5 an investigation into the matter. As part of that investigation, Pitt agreed to a safety plan.

6 RFP No. 32 seeks Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante about this safety plan.

7 Pitt objects to RFP No. 32 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

8 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

9 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

10 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

11 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

12 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

15 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

16 Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante about the DCFS’s requirement that Pitt

17 stipulate to a safety plan are highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal

18 fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped

19 to use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her

20 family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling

21 (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically

22 places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason

23 for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory

24 to the jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to

25 bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante about

26 why Pitt agreed to this safety plan may contain powerful and candid admissions that will

27 assist Jolie in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and affirmative defenses

28 to trial. This is especially true given that Pett-Dante’s business partner, Liebman, had direct

-106- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 communications with DCFS about its investigation. Jolie is entitled to receive this

2 evidence.

3 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 32 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

4 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

5 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

6 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

7 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

8 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

9 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

10 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

11 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

12 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 531, 557 (2017).

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

15 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

16 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

17 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

18 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

19 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

20 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

21 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

22 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

23 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic

24 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

25 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

26 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

27 evidence to prove her points.

28

-107- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pitt’s boilerplate objection that the request seeks documents protected by the

2 physician/patient privilege fares no better. The request on its face seeks communications

3 with Pett-Dante—not with any person covered by the physician/patient privilege.

4 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

5 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

6 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

7 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

8 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

9 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

10 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante is for Pitt to produce them. They are

11 documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

12 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with PERRIN regarding the SAFETY PLAN.

15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:

16 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

17 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

18 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

19 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

20 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

21 in this action.

22 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and

23 provide information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession

24 of Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is

25 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Pitt further objects to this Request to the

26 extent it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right

27 of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

28

-108- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

2 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

3 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

4 Angeles. The Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) immediately opened

5 an investigation into the matter. As part of that investigation, Pitt agreed to a safety plan.

6 RFP No. 33 seeks Pitt’s communications with Perrin about this safety plan.

7 Pitt objects to RFP No. 33 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

8 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

9 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

10 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

11 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

12 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

15 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

16 Pitt’s communications with Perrin about the DCFS’s requirement that Pitt stipulate

17 to a safety plan are highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart

18 over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his

19 purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family.

20 Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was

21 rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically places the

22 NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie

23 backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory to the

24 jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his

25 abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s communications with Perrin about why Pitt agreed

26 to this safety plan may contain powerful and candid admissions that will assist Jolie in

27 evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and affirmative defenses to trial. Jolie

28 is entitled to receive this evidence.

-109- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 33 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

2 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

3 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

4 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

5 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

6 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

7 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

8 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

9 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

10 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

11 531, 557 (2017).

12 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

15 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

16 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

17 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

18 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

19 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

20 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

21 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic

22 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

23 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

24 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

25 evidence to prove her points.

26 Pitt’s boilerplate objection that the request seeks documents protected by the

27 physician/patient privilege fares no better. The request on its face seeks communications

28 with Perrin—not with any person covered by the person covered by the physician/patient

-110- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 privilege.

2 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

3 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

4 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

5 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

6 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

7 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

8 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Perrin is for Pitt to produce them. They are

9 documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

10 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:

12 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with MALCHAR regarding the SAFETY PLAN.

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

15 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

16 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

17 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

18 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

19 in this action.

20 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and

21 provide information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession

22 of Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is

23 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Pitt further objects to this Request to the

24 extent it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right

25 of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

26 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

27 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

28 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

-111- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Angeles. The Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) immediately opened

2 an investigation into the matter. As part of that investigation, Pitt agreed to a safety plan.

3 RFP No. 34 seeks Pitt’s communications with Malchar about this safety plan.

4 Pitt objects to RFP No. 34 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

5 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

6 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

7 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

8 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

9 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

10 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

11 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

12 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Pitt’s communications with Malchar about the DCFS’s requirement that Pitt
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 stipulate to a safety plan are highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal

15 fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is that Pit t hoped

16 to use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her

17 family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling

18 (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically

19 places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason

20 for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory

21 to the jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to

22 bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s communications with Malchar about why

23 Pitt agreed to this safety plan may contain powerful and candid admissions that will assist

24 Jolie in evaluating her defense and bringing her cross-claim and affirmative defenses to

25 trial. This is especially true given that Malchar had direct communications with DCFS

26 about its investigation. Jolie is entitled to receive this evidence.

27 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 34 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

28 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

-112- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

2 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

3 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

4 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

5 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

6 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

7 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

8 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

9 531, 557 (2017).

10 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

11 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

12 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

15 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

16 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

17 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

18 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

19 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic

20 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

21 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

22 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

23 evidence to prove her points.

24 Pitt’s boilerplate objection that the request seeks documents protected by the

25 physician/patient privilege fares no better. The request on its face seeks communications

26 with Malchar—not with any person covered by the person covered by the physician/patient

27 privilege.

28

-113- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

2 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

3 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

4 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

5 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

6 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

7 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Malchar is for Pitt to produce them. They are

8 documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

9 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:

11 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with any public relations company from September 14,

12 2016 to February 16, 2022 regarding the SAFETY PLAN.

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

15 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

16 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

17 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

18 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

19 in this action.

20 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and

21 provide information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession

22 of Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is

23 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Pitt further objects to this Request to the

24 extent it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right

25 of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

26 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

27 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

28 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

-114- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Angeles. The Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) immediately opened

2 an investigation into the matter. As part of that investigation, Pitt agreed to a safety plan.

3 RFP No. 35 seeks Pitt’s communications with PR companies about this safety plan.

4 Pitt objects to RFP No. 35 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

5 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

6 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

7 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

8 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

9 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

10 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

11 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

12 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Pitt’s communications with PR companies about the DCFS’s requirement that Pitt
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 stipulate to a safety plan are highly relevant to this case. Jolie claims that the Miraval deal

15 fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA. Her theory of the case is tha t Pitt hoped

16 to use his purchase of her interest as a means of covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her

17 family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that the deal fell apart over a custody ruling

18 (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal three weeks later). He specifically

19 places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason

20 for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie disagrees, and to present her theory

21 to the jury, Jolie will present evidence of the underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to

22 bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s communications with a public relations

23 company about the DCFS’s investigation will undoubtedly assist Jolie in evaluating and

24 proving her case by revealing what Pitt was telling the media about that investigation. Jolie

25 expects that Pitt’s communications will reveal that he was not truthful with public relations

26 companies who worked with Pitt to manage the DCFS’s investigation vis -à-vis the public.

27 This untruthfulness is important for Jolie to be able to show at trial because it will

28 underscore how important it was for Pitt to get the NDA from her as part of the Miraval

-115- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 sale. Without it, Pitt would be exposed not just on the fact of his abuse itself, but also for

2 his dishonesty and attempt to cover up his conduct through a public relations campaign

3 built upon falsehoods.

4 Upon further review, however, Jolie is willing to limit the time period covered by

5 this request to communications from September 14, 2016 to December 31, 2018.

6 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 35 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

7 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

8 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

9 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

10 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

11 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

12 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

15 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

16 531, 557 (2017).

17 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

18 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

19 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

20 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

21 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

22 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

23 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

24 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

25 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

26 defenses with admissible evidence. Women who claim to be the victims of domestic

27 violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

28 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

-116- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

2 evidence to prove her points.

3 Pitt’s boilerplate objection that the request seeks documents protected by the

4 physician/patient privilege fares no better. The request on its face seeks communications

5 with PR companies—not with any person covered by the person covered by the

6 physician/patient privilege.

7 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

8 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

9 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

10 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

11 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

12 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with PR companies is for Pitt to produce them. They
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 are documents within his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this

15 case, and Pitt has a duty to produce them.

16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:

17 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with GRANT regarding any therapy in which YOU

18 voluntarily agreed to engage from September 14, 2016 through December 31, 2018.

19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:

20 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

21 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

22 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

24 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

25 in this action.

26 Pitt also objects to the use of the term “therapy,” which is vague, ambiguous, and

27 undefined. Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

28 disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right of privacy under the Constitution of the

-117- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

2 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

3 On September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and emotionally abused Jolie and their

4 children on an airplane travelling from France to Los Angeles. DCFS and the FBI

5 immediately opened parallel investigations into the matter. As part of concluding these

6 investigations, Pitt voluntarily agreed to participate in certain related therapy. RFP No. 36

7 seeks Pitt’s communications with cross-defendant Warrant Grant about this during the time

8 period immediately following his abuse of Jolie and their children on the plane.

9 Pitt objects to RFP No. 36 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

10 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

11 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

12 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

15 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

16 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

17 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

18 Grant is a key witness in this case. Not only is he Pitt’s business manager and

19 confidante, but he sent several emails to Jolie’s business manager when Pitt and Jolie

20 purchased Miraval in 2008 confirming that Pitt did not want any agreements between them

21 governing how the property would be disposed of in the even the couple broke up. After

22 Jolie divorced Pitt, Grant was heavily involved in Pitt’s attempts to buy Jolie’s interest in

23 Miraval. As a trusted advisor, Grant likely also had communications with Pitt about how to

24 handle the aftermath of his abuse of Jolie and their children. Those communications will

25 likely contain candid admissions about Pitt’s actions. With those communications in hand,

26 Jolie will be able to establish why, in 2021, Pitt demanded an NDA as a condition to

27 purchasing Jolie’s interest in Miraval. These communications are discoverable and likely

28 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

-118- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 36 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

2 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. But Pitt does not have a privacy

3 interest in his communications with Grant about this topic. A “court should not play the

4 trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v.

5 Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed

6 privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified an d carefully

7 comparted with competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a

8 balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a

9 starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to

10 establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing

11 must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior

12 Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of his communications

15 with Grant would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy

16 here, and any such interest has been waived by his disclosure to third parties . In contrast,

17 Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible evidence

18 regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a personal NDA

19 as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out of their deal

20 when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she

21 files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public policy based

22 defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible

23 evidence. As discussed above, women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence

24 are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

25 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

26 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

27 evidence to prove her points.

28

-119- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pitt also objects that the word “therapy” is vague and ambiguous. Therapy is a

2 commonly understood term and it need not be defined to be understood by Pitt’s highly

3 educated lawyers. The objection is frivolous.

4 Finally, Pitt claims that the request seeks information protected by the

5 physician/patient privilege. But this request is not seeking any such communications. Jolie

6 has always applauded his efforts to heal and has no interest in such communications. She

7 seeks, instead, only Pitt’s communications with Grant, who is not a physician, but is instead

8 Pitt’s business manager and a party in this case.

9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:

10 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with LIEBMAN regarding any therapy in which YOU

11 voluntarily agreed to engage from September 14, 2016 through December 31, 2018.

12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

15 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

16 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

17 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

18 in this action.

19 Pitt also objects to the use of the term “therapy,” which is vague, ambiguous, and

20 undefined. Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

21 disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right of privacy under the Constitution of the

22 State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

23 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

24 On September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and emotionally abused Jolie and their

25 children on an airplane travelling from France to Los Angeles. DCFS and the FBI

26 immediately opened parallel investigations into the matter. As part of concluding these

27 investigations, Pitt voluntarily agreed to participate in certain related therapy. RFP No. 37

28 seeks Pitt’s communications with Liebman about this during the time period immediately

-120- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 following his abuse of Jolie and their children on the plane.

2 Pitt objects to RFP No. 37 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

3 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

4 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

5 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

6 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

7 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

8 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

9 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

10 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

11 Liebman is a key witness in this case. He is Pitt’s talent agent who communicated

12 directly with DCFS and possibly other government agencies investigating Pitt’s abuse of
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Jolie and their children. As a trusted advisor, Liebman likely also had communications
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 with Pitt about how to handle the aftermath of his abuse of Jolie and their children. Those

15 communications will likely contain candid admissions about Pitt’s actions. With those

16 communications in hand, Jolie will be able to establish why, in 2021, Pitt demanded an

17 NDA as a condition to purchasing Jolie’s interest in Miraval. These communications are

18 discoverable and will likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

19 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 37 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

20 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. But Pitt does not have a privacy

21 interest in his communications with Liebman on this topic. A “court should not play the

22 trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v.

23 Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed

24 privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully

25 comparted with competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a

26 balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a

27 starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to

28 establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing

-121- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior

2 Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

3 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

4 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of his communications

5 with Liebman would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of

6 privacy here, and any such interest has been waived by his disclosure to third parties . In

7 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

8 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

9 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

10 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

11 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public

12 policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 with admissible evidence. As discussed above, women who claim to be the victims of
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 domestic violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa

15 Goodman, Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and

16 Dismissing Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect

17 documentary evidence to prove her points.

18 Pitt also objects that the word “therapy” is vague and ambiguous. Therapy is a

19 commonly understood term and it need not be defined to be understood by Pitt’s highly

20 educated lawyers. The objection is frivolous.

21 Finally, Pitt claims that the request seeks information protected by the

22 physician/patient privilege. But this request is not seeking any such communications. She

23 has always applauded his efforts to heal and has no interest in such communications. She

24 seeks, instead, only Pitt’s communications with Liebman, who is not a physician, but is

25 instead Pitt’s talent agent.

26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38:

27 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with PETT-DONTE regarding any therapy in which

28 YOU voluntarily agreed to engage from September 14, 2016 through December 31, 2018.

-122- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38:

2 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

3 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

4 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

5 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

6 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

7 in this action.

8 Pitt also objects to the use of the term “therapy,” which is vague, ambiguous, and

9 undefined. Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

10 disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right of privacy under the Constitution of the

11 State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

12 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 On September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and emotionally abused Jolie and their
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 children on an airplane travelling from France to Los Angeles. DCFS and the FBI

15 immediately opened parallel investigations into the matter. As part of concluding these

16 investigations, Pitt voluntarily agreed to participate in certain related therapy. RFP No. 38

17 seeks Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante about this during the time period immediately

18 following his abuse of Jolie and their children on the plane.

19 Pitt objects to RFP No. 38 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

20 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

21 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

22 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

23 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

24 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

25 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

26 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

27 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

28

-123- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pett-Dante is the co-owner of the talent agency that represents Pitt. She and her

2 partner, Liebman, communicated directly with DCFS and possibly other government

3 agencies investigating Pitt’s abuse of Jolie and their children. Pett-Dante is also one of

4 Pitt’s trusted advisors and likely also had communications with Pitt about how to handle the

5 aftermath of his abuse of Jolie and their children—relevant here, communications about

6 engaging in voluntary therapy. Those communications will likely contain candid

7 admissions about Pitt’s actions. With those communications in hand, Jolie will be able to

8 establish why, in 2021, Pitt demanded an NDA as a condition to purchasing Jolie’s interest

9 in Miraval. These communications are discoverable and will likely to lead to the discovery

10 of admissible evidence.

11 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 38 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

12 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. But Pitt does not have a privacy
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 interest in his communications with Pett-Dante about voluntary therapy. A “court should
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.”

15 Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the

16 claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully

17 comparted with competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a

18 balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a

19 starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to

20 establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing

21 must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior

22 Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

23 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

24 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of his communications

25 with Pett-Dante would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of

26 privacy here, and any such interest has been waived by his disclosure to third parties . In

27 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

28 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

-124- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

2 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

3 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionabilit y, and public

4 policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses

5 with admissible evidence. As discussed above, women who claim to be the victims of

6 domestic violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa

7 Goodman, Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and

8 Dismissing Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect

9 documentary evidence to prove her points.

10 Pitt also objects that the word “therapy” is vague and ambiguous. Therapy is a

11 commonly understood term and it need not be defined to be understood by Pitt’s highly

12 educated lawyers. The objection is frivolous.

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Finally, Pitt claims that the request seeks information protected by the
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 physician/patient privilege. But this request is not seeking any such communications. Jolie

15 has always applauded his efforts to heal and has no interest in such communications. She

16 seeks, instead, only Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante, who is not a physician, but is

17 instead the owner of the talent agency that represents and manages Pitt.

18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:

19 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with PERRIN regarding any therapy in which YOU

20 voluntarily agreed to engage from September 14, 2016 through December 31, 2018.

21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:

22 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

23 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

24 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

25 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

26 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

27 in this action.

28

-125- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pitt also objects to the use of the term “therapy,” which is vague, ambiguous, and

2 undefined. Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

3 disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right of privacy under the Constitution of the

4 State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

5 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

6 On September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and emotionally abused Jolie and their

7 children on an airplane travelling from France to Los Angeles. DCFS and the FBI

8 immediately opened parallel investigations into the matter. As part of concluding these

9 investigations, Pitt voluntarily agreed to participate in certain related therapy. RFP No. 39

10 seeks Pitt’s communications with Perrin about this during the time period immediately

11 following his abuse of Jolie and their children on the plane.

12 Pitt objects to RFP No. 39 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

15 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

16 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

17 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

18 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

19 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

20 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

21 Perrin co-owns with Pitt the Miraval joint venture, Miraval Provence. As Pitt’s

22 business partner, Pitt likely communicated with Perrin about DCFS and possibly other

23 government agencies investigating Pitt’s abuse of Jolie and their children. Perrin is als o

24 one of Pitt’s friends and likely also had communications with Pitt about how to handle the

25 aftermath of his abuse of Jolie and their children. Those communications will likely

26 contain candid admissions about Pitt’s actions. With those communications in hand, Jolie

27 will be able to establish why, in 2021, Pitt demanded an NDA as a condition to purchasing

28 Jolie’s interest in Miraval. These communications are discoverable and will likely to lead

-126- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 to the discovery of admissible evidence.

2 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 39 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

3 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. But Pitt does not have a privacy

4 interest in his communications with Perrin about this issue. A “court should not play the

5 trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v.

6 Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed

7 privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully

8 comparted with competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a

9 balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a

10 starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to

11 establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing

12 must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

15 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of his communications

16 with Perrin would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of p rivacy

17 here, and any such interest has been waived by his disclosure to third parties . In contrast,

18 Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible evidence

19 regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a personal NDA

20 as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out of their deal

21 when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she

22 files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public policy based

23 defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible

24 evidence. As discussed above, women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence

25 are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman,

26 Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing

27 Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary

28 evidence to prove her points.

-127- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pitt also objects that the word “therapy” is vague and ambiguous. Therapy is a

2 commonly understood term and it need not be defined to be understood by Pitt’s highly

3 educated lawyers. The objection is frivolous.

4 Finally, Pitt claims that the request seeks information protected by the

5 physician/patient privilege. But this request is not seeking any such communications. Jolie

6 has always applauded his efforts to heal and has no interest in such communications. She

7 seeks, instead, only Pitt’s communications with Perrin, who is not a physician, but is

8 instead the co-owner of Miraval Provence and a fellow cross defendant in this case.

9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40:

10 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with MALCHAR regarding any therapy in which YOU

11 voluntarily agreed to engage from September 14, 2016 through December 31, 2018.

12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40:

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

15 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

16 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

17 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

18 in this action.

19 Pitt also objects to the use of the term “therapy,” which is vague, ambiguous, and

20 undefined. Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

21 disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right of privacy under the Constitution of the

22 State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

23 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

24 On September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and emotionally abused Jolie and their

25 children on an airplane travelling from France to Los Angeles. DCFS and the FBI

26 immediately opened parallel investigations into the matter. As part of concluding these

27 investigations, Pitt voluntarily agreed to participate in certain related therapy. RFP No. 40

28 seeks Pitt’s communications with Malchar about this during the time period immediately

-128- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 following his abuse of Jolie and their children on the plane.

2 Pitt objects to RFP No. 40 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

3 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

4 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

5 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

6 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

7 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

8 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

9 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

10 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

11 Malchar is Pitt’s talent agent and communicated directly with DCFS and possibly

12 other government agencies investigating Pitt’s abuse of Jolie and their children. As Pitt’s
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 private security and personal attendant, Malchar likely also had communications wit h Pitt
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 about how to handle the aftermath of his abuse of Jolie and their children. Those

15 communications will likely contain candid admissions about Pitt’s actions. With those

16 communications in hand, Jolie will be able to establish why, in 2021, Pitt demanded an

17 NDA as a condition to purchasing Jolie’s interest in Miraval. These communications are

18 discoverable and will likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

19 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 40 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

20 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. But Pitt does not have a privacy

21 interest in his communications with Malchar about voluntary therapy. A “court shou ld not

22 play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.”

23 Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the

24 claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully

25 comparted with competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a

26 balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a

27 starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to

28 establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing

-129- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior

2 Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

3 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

4 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of his communications

5 with Malchar would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of

6 privacy here, and any such interest has been waived by his disclosure to third parties . In

7 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

8 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

9 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

10 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

11 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public

12 policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 with admissible evidence. As discussed above, women who claim to be the victims of
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 domestic violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa

15 Goodman, Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and

16 Dismissing Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect

17 documentary evidence to prove her points.

18 Pitt also objects that the word “therapy” is vague and ambiguous. Therapy is a

19 commonly understood term and it need not be defined to be understood by Pitt’s highly

20 educated lawyers. The objection is frivolous.

21 Finally, Pitt claims that the request seeks information protected by the

22 physician/patient privilege. But this request is not seeking any such communications. Jolie

23 has always applauded his efforts to heal and has no interest in such communications. She

24 seeks, instead, only Pitt’s communications with Malchar, who is not a physician, but is

25 instead Pitt’s private security provider and personal attendant.

26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41:

27 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with any public relations company from September 14,

28 2016 to February 16, 2022 regarding any therapy in which YOU voluntarily agreed to engage

-130- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 from September 14, 2016 through December 31, 2018.

2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41:

3 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

4 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

5 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

6 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

7 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

8 in this action.

9 Pitt also objects to the use of the term “therapy,” which is vague, ambiguous, and

10 undefined. Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

11 disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right of privacy under the Constitution of the

12 State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 On September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and emotionally abused Jolie and their

15 children on an airplane travelling from France to Los Angeles. DCFS and the FBI

16 immediately opened parallel investigations into the matter. As part of concluding these

17 investigations, Pitt voluntarily agreed to participate in certain related therapy. RFP No. 41

18 seeks Pitt’s communications with public relations companies about this during the time

19 period immediately following his abuse of Jolie and their children on the plane.

20 Pitt objects to RFP No. 41 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

21 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

22 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

23 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

24 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

25 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

26 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

27 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

28 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

-131- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 To the extent Pitt had communications with a public relations company about this

2 topic, those communications will assist Jolie in evaluating and proving her case by

3 revealing what Pitt was telling the media about it. Jolie expects that Pitt’s communications

4 will reveal that he was not truthful with public relations companies who worked with Pitt to

5 manage the DCFS’s investigation vis-à-vis the public. This untruthfulness is important for

6 Jolie to be able to show at trial because it will underscore how important it was for Pitt to

7 get the NDA from her as part of the Miraval sale. Without it, Pitt would be expos ed not

8 just on the fact of his abuse itself, but also for his dishonesty and attempt to cover up his

9 conduct through a public relations campaign built upon falsehoods.

10 Upon further review, however, Jolie is willing to limit the time period covered by

11 this request to communications from September 14, 2016 to December 31, 2018.

12 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 41 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. But Pitt does not have a privacy
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 interest in his communications with PR companies about this topic. A “court should not

15 play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.”

16 Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the

17 claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully

18 comparted with competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a

19 balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a

20 starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to

21 establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing

22 must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior

23 Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

24 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

25 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of his communications

26 with PR companies would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of

27 privacy here, and any privacy interest has been waived. In contrast, Jolie has a specific and

28 important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible evidence regarding a hotly

-132- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a personal NDA as a condition to

2 buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out of their deal when Jolie refused.

3 Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her answer,

4 including unclean hands, unconscionability, and public policy based defenses. Jolie must

5 be able to prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evidence. As

6 discussed above, women who claim to be the victims of domestic violence are rarely

7 believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women:

8 Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences, 167

9 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect documentary evidence to prove her

10 points.

11 Pitt also objects that the word “therapy” is vague and ambiguous. Therapy is a

12 commonly understood term and it need not be defined to be understood by Pitt’s highly
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 educated lawyers. The objection is frivolous.

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Finally, Pitt claims that the request seeks information protected by the

15 physician/patient privilege. But this request is not seeking any such communications. Jolie

16 has always applauded his efforts to heal and has no interest in such communications. She

17 seeks, instead, only Pitt’s communications with PR companies, whose function is to

18 disclose information to the public.

19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42:

20 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with the LAPD from September 14, 2016 to September

21 14, 2017 regarding the FLIGHT.

22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42:

23 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

24 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

25 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

26 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

27 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

28 in this action.

-133- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

2 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

3 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

4 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

5 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

6 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

7 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

8 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

9 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

10 Angeles. Because the flight landed at the Los Angeles International Airport, the Los

11 Angeles Police Department was initially involved in responding to the anonymous report

12 about Pitt’s abusive behavior on the plane.

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Pitt objects to RFP No. 42 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

15 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

16 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

17 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

18 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

19 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

20 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

21 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

22 Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA.

23 Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of

24 covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that

25 the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal

26 three weeks later). Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the

27 SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie

28 disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will have to present evidence of the

-134- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s

2 communications with the LAPD may contain powerful and candid admissions about what

3 happened on the flight. Those communications will serve as evidence to support Jolie’s

4 Cross-Complaint and affirmative defenses.

5 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 42 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

6 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

7 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

8 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

9 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

10 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

11 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

12 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

15 531, 557 (2017).

16 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

17 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

18 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

19 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

20 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

21 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

22 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

23 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

24 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

25 defenses with admissible evidence. As discussed above, women who claim to be the

26 victims of domestic violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein

27 & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and

28 Dismissing Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect

-135- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 documentary evidence to prove her points.

2 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

3 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

4 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

5 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

6 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

7 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

8 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with the LAPD is for Pitt to produce them. Pitt’s

9 communications with the LAPD are not publicly available. They are documents within his

10 possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this case, and Pitt has a duty

11 to produce them.

12 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43:

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with GRANT regarding the LAPD’s investigation into

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 what transpired on the FLIGHT.

15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43:

16 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

17 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

18 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

19 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

20 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

21 in this action.

22 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

23 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

24 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

25 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

26 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

27 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

28

-136- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

2 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

3 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

4 Angeles. Because the flight landed at the Los Angeles International Airport, the Lo s

5 Angeles Police Department was initially involved in responding to the anonymous report

6 about Pitt’s abusive behavior on the plane.

7 Pitt objects to RFP No. 43 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

8 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

9 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

10 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

11 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

12 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

15 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

16 Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA.

17 Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of

18 covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that

19 the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal

20 three weeks later). Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the

21 SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie

22 disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will have to present evidence of the

23 underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s

24 communications with Grant may contain powerful and candid admissions about what

25 happened on the flight. Those communications will serve as evidence to support Jolie’s

26 Cross-Complaint and affirmative defenses.

27 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 43 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

28 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

-137- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

2 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

3 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

4 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

5 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

6 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

7 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

8 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

9 531, 557 (2017).

10 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

11 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

12 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

15 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

16 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

17 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

18 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

19 defenses with admissible evidence. As discussed above, women who claim to be the

20 victims of domestic violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein

21 & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and

22 Dismissing Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect

23 documentary evidence to prove her points.

24 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

25 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

26 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

27 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

28 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

-138- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

2 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Grant is for Pitt to produce them. Pitt’s

3 communications with Grant are not publicly available. They are documents within his

4 possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this case, and Pitt has a duty

5 to produce them.

6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44:

7 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with LIEBMAN regarding the LAPD’s investigation into

8 what transpired on the FLIGHT.

9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44:

10 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

11 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

12 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

15 in this action.

16 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

17 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

18 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

19 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

20 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

21 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

22 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

23 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

24 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

25 Angeles. Because the flight landed at the Los Angeles International Airport, the Lo s

26 Angeles Police Department was initially involved in responding to the anonymous report

27 about Pitt’s abusive behavior on the plane.

28

-139- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pitt objects to RFP No. 44 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

2 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

3 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

4 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

5 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

6 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

7 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

8 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

9 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

10 Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA.

11 Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of

12 covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 three weeks later). Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the

15 SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie

16 disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will have to present evidence of the

17 underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s

18 communications with Liebman may contain powerful and candid admissions about what

19 happened on the flight. Those communications will serve as evidence to support Jolie’s

20 Cross-Complaint and affirmative defenses.

21 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 44 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

22 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

23 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

24 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

25 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

26 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

27 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

28 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

-140- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

2 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

3 531, 557 (2017).

4 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

5 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

6 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

7 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

8 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

9 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

10 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

11 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

12 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 defenses with admissible evidence. As discussed above, women who claim to be the
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 victims of domestic violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein

15 & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and

16 Dismissing Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect

17 documentary evidence to prove her points.

18 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

19 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

20 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

21 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

22 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

23 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

24 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Liebman is for Pitt to produce them. Pitt’s

25 communications with Liebman are not publicly available. They are documents within his

26 possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this case, and Pitt has a duty

27 to produce them.

28

-141- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45:

2 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with PETT-DONTE regarding the LAPD’s investigation

3 into what transpired on the FLIGHT.

4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45:

5 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

6 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

7 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

8 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

9 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

10 in this action.

11 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

12 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

15 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

16 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

17 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

18 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

19 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

20 Angeles. Because the flight landed at the Los Angeles International Airport, the Lo s

21 Angeles Police Department was initially involved in responding to the anonymous report

22 about Pitt’s abusive behavior on the plane.

23 Pitt objects to RFP No. 45 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

24 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

25 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

26 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

27 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

28 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

-142- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

2 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

3 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

4 Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA.

5 Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of

6 covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that

7 the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal

8 three weeks later). Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the

9 SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie

10 disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will have to present evidence of the

11 underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s

12 communications with Pett-Dante may contain powerful and candid admissions about what
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 happened on the flight. Those communications will serve as evidence to support Jolie’s
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Cross-Complaint and affirmative defenses.

15 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 45 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

16 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

17 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

18 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

19 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

20 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

21 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

22 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

23 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

24 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

25 531, 557 (2017).

26 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

27 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

28 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

-143- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

2 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

3 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

4 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

5 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

6 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

7 defenses with admissible evidence. As discussed above, women who claim to be the

8 victims of domestic violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein

9 & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and

10 Dismissing Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect

11 documentary evidence to prove her points.

12 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

15 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

16 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

17 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

18 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante is for Pitt to produce them. Pitt’s

19 communications with Pett-Dante are not publicly available. They are documents within his

20 possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this case, and Pitt has a duty

21 to produce them.

22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46:

23 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with MALCHAR regarding the LAPD’s investigation

24 into what transpired on the FLIGHT.

25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46:

26 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

27 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

28 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

-144- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

2 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

3 in this action.

4 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

5 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California. Pitt further

6 objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and provide information

7 that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession of Jolie, or is

8 equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is more

9 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

10 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

11 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

12 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Angeles. Because the flight landed at the Los Angeles International Airport, the Lo s
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Angeles Police Department was initially involved in responding to the anonymous report

15 about Pitt’s abusive behavior on the plane.

16 Pitt objects to RFP No. 46 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

17 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

18 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

19 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

20 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

21 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

22 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

23 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

24 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

25 Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA.

26 Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of

27 covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that

28 the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal

-145- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 three weeks later). Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the

2 SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie

3 disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will have to present evidence of the

4 underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s

5 communications with Malchar may contain powerful and candid admissions about what

6 happened on the flight. Those communications will serve as evidence to support Jolie’s

7 Cross-Complaint and affirmative defenses.

8 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 46 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

9 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

10 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

11 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

12 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

15 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

16 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

17 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

18 531, 557 (2017).

19 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

20 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

21 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

22 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

23 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

24 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

25 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

26 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

27 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

28 defenses with admissible evidence. As discussed above, women who claim to be the

-146- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 victims of domestic violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein

2 & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and

3 Dismissing Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect

4 documentary evidence to prove her points.

5 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

6 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

7 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

8 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

9 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

10 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

11 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with Malchar is for Pitt to produce them. Pitt’s

12 communications with Malchar are not publicly available. They are documents within his
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this case, and Pitt has a duty
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 to produce them.

15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47:

16 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with any public relations company regarding the LAPD’s

17 investigation into what transpired on the FLIGHT.

18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47:

19 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

20 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

21 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

22 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

23 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

24 in this action. Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents protected from

25 disclosure by the right of privacy under the Constitution of the State of California.

26 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and

27 provide information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession

28 of Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is

-147- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

2 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

3 As detailed in Jolie’s Cross-Complaint, on September 14, 2016, Pitt physically and

4 emotionally abused Jolie and their children on an airplane travelling from France to Los

5 Angeles. Because the flight landed at the Los Angeles International Airport, the Lo s

6 Angeles Police Department was initially involved in responding to the anonymous report

7 about Pitt’s abusive behavior on the plane.

8 Pitt objects to RFP No. 47 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

9 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of

10 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98

11 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

12 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

15 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

16 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

17 Jolie claims that the Miraval deal fell apart over Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA.

18 Her theory of the case is that Pitt hoped to use his purchase of her interest as a means of

19 covering up his prior abuse of Jolie and her family. Pitt disputes this theory and alleges that

20 the deal fell apart over a custody ruling (that was rendered a nullity by the Court of Appeal

21 three weeks later). Pitt specifically places the NDA at issue in paragraphs 83 to 92 of the

22 SAC, calling it a “pretextual” reason for Jolie backing out of the deal. (SAC at ¶ 88.) Jolie

23 disagrees, and to present her theory to the jury, Jolie will have to present evidence of the

24 underlying misconduct that Pitt hoped to bury—his abuse of Jolie and their children. Pitt’s

25 communications with a public relations company about the FBI’s investigation will

26 undoubtedly assist Jolie in evaluating and proving her case by revealing what Pitt was

27 telling the media about the FBI’s investigation. Jolie expects that Pitt’s communications

28 will reveal that he was not truthful with public relations companies who worked with Pitt to

-148- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 manage the FBI’s investigation vis-à-vis the public. This untruthfulness is important for

2 Jolie to be able to show at trial because it will underscore how important it was for Pitt to

3 get the NDA from her as part of the Miraval sale. Without it, Pitt would be exposed not

4 just on the fact of his abuse itself, but also for his dishonesty and attempt to cover up his

5 conduct through a public relations campaign built upon falsehoods.

6 However, upon further review, Jolie is willing to limit the time period covered by

7 this request to communications from September 14, 2016, to December 31, 2018.

8 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 47 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

9 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

10 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

11 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

12 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

15 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

16 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

17 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

18 531, 557 (2017).

19 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

20 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

21 would invade. And there is none. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy here. In

22 contrast, Jolie has a specific and important countervailing interest in obtaining admissible

23 evidence regarding a hotly contested factual dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a

24 personal NDA as a condition to buying Jolie’s interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out

25 of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie intends to assert numerous affirmative

26 defenses when she files her answer, including unclean hands, unconscionability, and

27 public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to prove the facts underpinning these

28 defenses with admissible evidence. As discussed above, women who claim to be the

-149- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 victims of domestic violence are rarely believed on their word alone. See Deborah Epstein

2 & Lisa Goodman, Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and

3 Dismissing Their Experiences, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 399 (2019). Thus, Jolie must collect

4 documentary evidence to prove her points.

5 Finally, Pitt claims that the requests seek information that is equally available to

6 Jolie, either publicly or from third parties, rendering the requests unduly burdensome. First,

7 this is blatantly untrue. As between Jolie and Pitt, only Pitt has access to his own

8 communications. Moreover, this is not a valid objection under California law. Merely

9 because a party theoretically has the ability to obtain these documents from a third party

10 does not eliminate the party’s obligation to produce them. Indeed, the most direct way for

11 Jolie to obtain Pitt’s communications with PR companies is for Pitt to produce them. Pitt’s

12 communications with PR companies are not publicly available. They are documents within
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 his possession, custody, or control, the documents are relevant to this case, and Pitt has a
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 duty to produce them.

15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48:

16 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with any person regarding or discussing your personal

17 overuse or abuse of alcohol from January 1, 2008, through October 4, 2021.

18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48:

19 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

20 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

21 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

22 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

23 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

24 in this action.

25 Pitt also objects to the use of the term “personal overuse or abuse of alcohol,” which is

26 vague, ambiguous, and undefined. Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks

27 documents protected from disclosure by the physician/patient privilege, the right of privacy

28 under the Constitution of the State of California, and/or any other applicable laws.

-150- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

2 . This request seeks documents to help establish the connection between Pitt’s

3 alcohol use and his demand for an NDA to cover up all of the related details. Publicly,

4 Pitt’s sources repeatedly and vociferously denied that alcohol played any role in Pitt’s

5 relationship with Jolie and their children. His private, non-privileged discussions are

6 potentially powerful evidence to help establish whether his use of alcohol did in fact play a

7 role in that relationship—as Jole contends and which supports why he needed an NDA—or

8 it will help establish that Pitt’s use of alcohol was completely unconnected to any wrongful

9 conduct, thereby supporting Pitt’s theory of the case. Either way the evidence is relevant

10 and discoverable.

11 Pitt objects to RFP No. 48 on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

12 relevant to this case. “Any doubts about relevance are generally resolved in favor of
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might reasonably assist a party in

15 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the

16 test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible

17 evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See

18 also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if

19 it might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence”).

20 For Jolie to explain to the jury why the NDA was a dealbreaker for her —and why it

21 was essential for Pitt—she must be able to show what Pitt hoped to hide with the NDA.

22 While the NDA was certainly intended to cover up his abuse of Jolie and their children, it

23 was also designed to help bury the role alcohol played in his relationships with his family.

24 His non-privileged communications on this topic with others are thus highly relevant and

25 discoverable.

26 Pitt also objects to RFP No. 48 on the ground that it seeks documents protected by

27 the right of privacy under the California Constitution. A “court should not play the trump

28 card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.” Wilkinson v. Times

-151- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the claimed privacy

2 right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully comparted with

3 competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test.” Hill v.

4 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a starting point, courts must

5 first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and

6 seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the

7 countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th

8 531, 557 (2017).

9 In his objections and during the subsequent lengthy meet-and-confer process, Pitt

10 did not specifically identify any privacy interest that production of the requested documents

11 would invade. Pitt does not have an expectation of privacy in non-privileged

12 communications concerning this issue. In contrast, Jolie has a specific and important
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 countervailing interest in obtaining admissible evidence regarding a hotly contested factual

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 dispute in this case: why Pitt demanded a personal NDA as a condition to buyin g Jolie’s

15 interest in Miraval and why Pitt backed out of their deal when Jolie refused. Further, Jolie

16 intends to assert numerous affirmative defenses when she files her answer, including

17 unclean hands, unconscionability, and public-policy based defenses. Jolie must be able to

18 prove the facts underpinning these defenses with admissible evidence.

19 Pitt also objects that the phrase “personal overuse or abuse of alcohol” is vague and

20 ambiguous. But Pitt does not explain the ambiguity and it is not ambiguous. This phrase is

21 constructed with commonly used words and is readily understandable to an ordinary person.

22 The Court should overrule the objection.

23 Finally, Pitt claims that the request seeks information that is protected by the

24 physician-patient privilege. To the extent Pitt has such communications on this topic with a

25 physician, Jolie has no interest in those documents and they can obviously be withheld. But

26 to the extent Pitt had communications not covered by that privilege, Pitt must produce

27 them.

28

-152- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49:

2 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with GRANT concerning Petitioner’s Offer of Proof and

3 Authority in Support Thereof Re: Testimony Regarding Domestic Violence that Jolie filed

4 under seal in the DIVORCE CASE on or about March 12, 2021.

5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49:

6 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

7 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

8 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

9 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

10 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

11 in this action.

12 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 provide information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 of Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is

15 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Pitt further objects to this Request to the

16 extent it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the right of privacy under the

17 Constitution of the State of California.

18 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

19 In February 2021, Jolie agreed to sell Pitt her half-interest in Chateau Miraval. In March

20 2021, Pitt “stepped back” from the agreement, then demanded an NDA from Jolie that would

21 cover Pitt’s personal conduct. The reason for Pitt’s demand is simple: On March 12, 2021, as

22 part of the couple’s ongoing child custody dispute, Jolie filed under seal two “Offers of Proof”

23 detailing the evidence of Pitt’s domestic violence against Jolie and their children. When Jolie

24 filed the evidence in the custody suit, she was careful to file it under seal so that no member of

25 the public could see it. But Jolie’s sealed filing, which included emails, summaries of the

26 family’s expected testimony, and other evidence, caused Pitt to fear that the information could

27 eventually become public. For the previous five years and to protect their children’s health and

28 privacy, Jolie had never revealed to the public any details of Pitt’s abuse and related efforts to

-153- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 cover it up. Nevertheless, Pitt was no longer willing to rely on Jolie’s voluntary efforts to

2 preserve the family’s privacy, and he attempted to leverage his buyout of Jolie’s interest in

3 Miraval to contractually bind her to remain silent essentially forever.

4 Pitt objects to this request on relevance grounds. “Any doubts about relevance are

5 generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158

6 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might

7 reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a

8 settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might

9 reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53

10 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206

11 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if it might reasonably lead to other, admissible

12 evidence”).
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Pitt’s communications with his business manager, Warrant Grant, about the Offers of
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Proof will be extremely important, contemporaneous evidence that will help Jolie establish the

15 link between the NDA Pitt demanded and the abuse Pitt was hoping to bury. This evidence

16 goes to the heart of the case, especially if Pitt has communications with Grant where he spells

17 out that link, which would directly contradict his allegations in this case. Those

18 communications are obviously relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

19 Pitt also objects on the ground that the requested documents are publicly available or

20 equally available to Jolie. But Jolie does not have access to Pitt’s or Grant’s communications.

21 The documents are not publicly available and the Court should overrule this boilerplate

22 objection.

23 Finally, Pitt objects that the request will invade his right to privacy. A “court should

24 not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.”

25 Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the

26 claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully

27 comparted with competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a

28 balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a

-154- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to

2 establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing

3 must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior

4 Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

5 Pitt does not have a privacy interest in his communications with his business

6 manager about allegations of abuse filed by Pitt’s ex-wife in court. Pitt did not identify

7 such an interest during the meet-and-confer process. On the other hand, and as discussed

8 above, Jolie has a compelling interest in obtaining these communications to show the

9 factfinder the link between the Offer of Proof she filed, Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA,

10 and why the deal to purchase her interest in Miraval ultimately fell apart. These documents

11 will also help establish Jolie’s state of mind, defend against Pitt’s request for punitive

12 damages on the ground that Jolie was acting maliciously when she sold to a third party, and
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 help Jolie establish the factual predicates for her affirmative defenses, including unclean
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 hands, excuse of performance, and unconscionability.

15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50:

16 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with LIEBMAN concerning Petitioner’s Offer of Proof

17 and Authority in Support Thereof Re: Testimony Regarding Domestic Violence that Jolie filed

18 under seal in the DIVORCE CASE on or about March 12, 2021.

19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50:

20 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

21 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

22 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

24 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

25 in this action.

26 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and

27 provide information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession

28 of Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is

-155- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Pitt further objects to this Request to the

2 extent it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the right of privacy under the

3 Constitution of the State of California.

4 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

5 In February 2021, Jolie agreed to sell Pitt her half-interest in Chateau Miraval. In March

6 2021, Pitt “stepped back” from the agreement, then demanded an NDA from Jolie that would

7 cover Pitt’s personal conduct. The reason for Pitt’s demand is simple: On March 12, 2021, as

8 part of the couple’s ongoing child custody dispute, Jolie filed under seal two “Offers of Proof”

9 detailing the evidence of Pitt’s domestic violence against Jolie and their children. When Jolie

10 filed the evidence in the custody suit, she was careful to file it under seal so that no member of

11 the public could see it. But Jolie’s sealed filing, which included emails, summaries of the

12 family’s expected testimony, and other evidence, caused Pitt to fear that the information could
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 eventually become public. For the previous five years and to protect their children’s health and
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 privacy, Jolie had never revealed to the public any details of Pitt’s abuse and related efforts to

15 cover it up. Nevertheless, Pitt was no longer willing to rely on Jolie’s voluntary efforts to

16 preserve the family’s privacy, and he attempted to leverage his buyout of Jolie’s interest in

17 Miraval to contractually bind her to remain silent essentially forever.

18 Pitt objects to this request on relevance grounds. “Any doubts about relevance are

19 generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158

20 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might

21 reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a

22 settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might

23 reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53

24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206

25 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if it might reasonably lead to other, admissible

26 evidence”).

27 Pitt’s communications with his agent, Liebman, about the Offers of Proof will be

28 extremely important, contemporaneous evidence that will help Jolie establish the link between

-156- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 the NDA Pitt demanded and the abuse Pitt was hoping to bury. This evidence goes to the heart

2 of the case, especially if Pitt has communications with Liebman where he spells out that link,

3 which would directly contradict his allegations in this case. Those communications are

4 obviously relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

5 Pitt also objects on the ground that the requested documents are publicly available or

6 equally available to Jolie. But Jolie does not have access to Pitt’s or Liebman’s

7 communications. The documents are not publicly available and the Court should overrule this

8 boilerplate objection.

9 Finally, Pitt objects that the request will invade his right to privacy. A “court should

10 not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.”

11 Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the

12 claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 comparted with competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a

15 starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to

16 establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing

17 must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior

18 Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

19 Pitt does not have a privacy interest in his communications with his Liebman about

20 allegations of abuse filed by Pitt’s ex-wife in court. Pitt did not identify such an interest

21 during the meet-and-confer process. On the other hand, and as discussed above, Jolie has a

22 compelling interest in obtaining these communications to show the factfinder the link

23 between the Offer of Proof she filed, Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA, and why the deal

24 to purchase her interest in Miraval ultimately fell apart. These documents will also help

25 establish Jolie’s state of mind, defend against Pitt’s request for punitive damages on the

26 ground that Jolie was acting maliciously when she sold to a third party, and help Jolie

27 establish the factual predicates for her affirmative defenses, including unclean hands,

28 excuse of performance, and unconscionability.

-157- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51:

2 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with PETT-DONTE concerning Petitioner’s Offer of

3 Proof and Authority in Support Thereof Re: Testimony Regarding Domestic Violence that Jolie

4 filed under seal in the DIVORCE CASE on or about March 12, 2021.

5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51:

6 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

7 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

8 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

9 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

10 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

11 in this action.

12 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 provide information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 of Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is

15 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Pitt further objects to this Request to the

16 extent it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the right of privacy under the

17 Constitution of the State of California.

18 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

19 In February 2021, Jolie agreed to sell Pitt her half-interest in Chateau Miraval. In March

20 2021, Pitt “stepped back” from the agreement, then demanded an NDA from Jolie that would

21 cover Pitt’s personal conduct. The reason for Pitt’s demand is simple: On March 12, 2021, as

22 part of the couple’s ongoing child custody dispute, Jolie filed under seal two “Offers of Proof”

23 detailing the evidence of Pitt’s domestic violence against Jolie and their children. When Jolie

24 filed the evidence in the custody suit, she was careful to file it under seal so that no member of

25 the public could see it. But Jolie’s sealed filing, which included emails, summaries of the

26 family’s expected testimony, and other evidence, caused Pitt to fear that the information could

27 eventually become public. For the previous five years and to protect their children’s health and

28 privacy, Jolie had never revealed to the public any details of Pitt’s abuse and related efforts to

-158- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 cover it up. Nevertheless, Pitt was no longer willing to rely on Jolie’s voluntary efforts to

2 preserve the family’s privacy, and he attempted to leverage his buyout of Jolie’s interest in

3 Miraval to contractually bind her to remain silent essentially forever.

4 Pitt objects to this request on relevance grounds. “Any doubts about relevance are

5 generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158

6 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might

7 reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a

8 settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might

9 reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53

10 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206

11 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if it might reasonably lead to other, admissible

12 evidence”).
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Pitt’s communications with Pett-Dante about the Offers of Proof will be extremely
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 important, contemporaneous evidence that will help Jolie establish the link between the NDA

15 Pitt demanded and the abuse Pitt was hoping to bury. This evidence goes to the heart of the

16 case, especially if Pitt has communications with Pett-Dante where he spells out that link, which

17 would directly contradict his allegations in this case. Those communications are obviously

18 relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

19 Pitt also objects on the ground that the requested documents are publicly available or

20 equally available to Jolie. But Jolie does not have access to Pitt’s or Pett-Dante’s

21 communications. The documents are not publicly available and the Court should overrule this

22 boilerplate objection.

23 Finally, Pitt objects that the request will invade his right to privacy. A “court should

24 not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.”

25 Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the

26 claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully

27 comparted with competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a

28 balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a

-159- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to

2 establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing

3 must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior

4 Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

5 Pitt does not have a privacy interest in his communications with Pett-Dante about

6 allegations of abuse filed by Pitt’s ex-wife in court. Pitt did not identify such an interest

7 during the meet-and-confer process. On the other hand, and as discussed above, Jolie has a

8 compelling interest in obtaining these communications to show the factfinder the link

9 between the Offer of Proof she filed, Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA, and why the deal

10 to purchase her interest in Miraval ultimately fell apart. These documents will also help

11 establish Jolie’s state of mind, defend against Pitt’s request for punitive damages on the

12 ground that Jolie was acting maliciously when she sold to a third party, and help Jolie
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 establish the factual predicates for her affirmative defenses, including unclean hands,
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 excuse of performance, and unconscionability.

15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52:

16 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with PERRIN concerning Petitioner’s Offer of Proof and

17 Authority in Support Thereof Re: Testimony Regarding Domestic Violence that Jolie filed

18 under seal in the DIVORCE CASE on or about March 12, 2021.

19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52:

20 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

21 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

22 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

24 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

25 in this action.

26 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and

27 provide information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession

28 of Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is

-160- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Pitt further objects to this Request to the

2 extent it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the right of privacy under the

3 Constitution of the State of California.

4 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

5 In February 2021, Jolie agreed to sell Pitt her half-interest in Chateau Miraval. In March

6 2021, Pitt “stepped back” from the agreement, then demanded an NDA from Jolie that would

7 cover Pitt’s personal conduct. The reason for Pitt’s demand is simple: On March 12, 2021, as

8 part of the couple’s ongoing child custody dispute, Jolie filed under seal two “Offers of Proof”

9 detailing the evidence of Pitt’s domestic violence against Jolie and their children. When Jolie

10 filed the evidence in the custody suit, she was careful to file it under seal so that no member of

11 the public could see it. But Jolie’s sealed filing, which included emails, summaries of the

12 family’s expected testimony, and other evidence, caused Pitt to fear that the information could
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 eventually become public. For the previous five years and to protect their children’s health and
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 privacy, Jolie had never revealed to the public any details of Pitt’s abuse and related efforts to

15 cover it up. Nevertheless, Pitt was no longer willing to rely on Jolie’s voluntary efforts to

16 preserve the family’s privacy, and he attempted to leverage his buyout of Jolie’s interest in

17 Miraval to contractually bind her to remain silent essentially forever.

18 Pitt objects to this request on relevance grounds. “Any doubts about relevance are

19 generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158

20 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might

21 reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a

22 settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might

23 reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53

24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206

25 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if it might reasonably lead to other, admissible

26 evidence”).

27 Pitt’s communications with Perrin about the Offers of Proof will be extremely important,

28 contemporaneous evidence that will help Jolie establish the link between the NDA Pitt

-161- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 demanded and the abuse Pitt was hoping to bury. This evidence goes to the heart of the case,

2 especially if Pitt has communications with Perrin where he spells out that link, which would

3 directly contradict his allegations in this case. Indeed, discovery in this case has already

4 confirmed that both Pitt and Perrin sought the expanded NDA covering Pitt’s personal conduct

5 specifically in response to the Offer of Proof’s filing. Their communications are obviously

6 relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

7 Pitt also objects on the ground that the requested documents are publicly available or

8 equally available to Jolie. But Jolie does not have access to Pitt’s or Perrin’s communications.

9 The documents are not publicly available and the Court should overrule this boilerplate

10 objection.

11 Finally, Pitt objects that the request will invade his right to privacy. A “court should

12 not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.”
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully

15 comparted with competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a

16 balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a

17 starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to

18 establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing

19 must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior

20 Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

21 Pitt does not have a privacy interest in his communications with Perrin about

22 allegations of abuse filed by Pitt’s ex-wife in court. Pitt did not identify such an interest

23 during the meet-and-confer process. On the other hand, and as discussed above, Jolie has a

24 compelling interest in obtaining these communications to show the factfinder the link

25 between the Offer of Proof she filed, Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA, and why the deal

26 to purchase her interest in Miraval ultimately fell apart. These documents will also help

27 establish Jolie’s state of mind, defend against Pitt’s request for punitive damages on the

28 ground that Jolie was acting maliciously when she sold to a third party, and help Jolie

-162- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 establish the factual predicates for her affirmative defenses, including unclean hands,

2 excuse of performance, and unconscionability.

3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53:

4 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with MALCHAR concerning Petitioner’s Offer of Proof

5 and Authority in Support Thereof Re: Testimony Regarding Domestic Violence that Jolie filed

6 under seal in the DIVORCE CASE on or about March 12, 2021.

7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53:

8 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

9 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

10 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

11 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

12 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 in this action.
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and

15 provide information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession

16 of Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is

17 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Pitt further objects to this Request to the

18 extent it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the right of privacy under the

19 Constitution of the State of California.

20 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

21 In February 2021, Jolie agreed to sell Pitt her half-interest in Chateau Miraval. In March

22 2021, Pitt “stepped back” from the agreement, then demanded an NDA from Jolie that would

23 cover Pitt’s personal conduct. The reason for Pitt’s demand is simple: On March 12, 2021, as

24 part of the couple’s ongoing child custody dispute, Jolie filed under seal two “Offers of Proof”

25 detailing the evidence of Pitt’s domestic violence against Jolie and their children. When Jolie

26 filed the evidence in the custody suit, she was careful to file it under seal so that no member of

27 the public could see it. But Jolie’s sealed filing, which included emails, summaries of the

28 family’s expected testimony, and other evidence, caused Pitt to fear that the information could

-163- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 eventually become public. For the previous five years and to protect their children’s health and

2 privacy, Jolie had never revealed to the public any details of Pitt’s abuse and related efforts to

3 cover it up. Nevertheless, Pitt was no longer willing to rely on Jolie’s voluntary efforts to

4 preserve the family’s privacy, and he attempted to leverage his buyout of Jolie’s interest in

5 Miraval to contractually bind her to remain silent essentially forever.

6 Pitt objects to this request on relevance grounds. “Any doubts about relevance are

7 generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158

8 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might

9 reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a

10 settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might

11 reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53

12 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if it might reasonably lead to other, admissible

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 evidence”).

15 Pitt’s communications with Malchar about the Offers of Proof will be extremely

16 important, contemporaneous evidence that will help Jolie establish the link between the NDA

17 Pitt demanded and the abuse Pitt was hoping to bury. This evidence goes to the heart of the

18 case, especially if Pitt has communications with Malchar where he spells out that link, which

19 would directly contradict his allegations in this case. Those communications are obviously

20 relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

21 Pitt also objects on the ground that the requested documents are publicly available or

22 equally available to Jolie. But Jolie does not have access to Pitt’s or Malchar’s

23 communications. The documents are not publicly available and the Court should overrule this

24 boilerplate objection.

25 Finally, Pitt objects that the request will invade his right to privacy. A “court should

26 not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.”

27 Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the

28 claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully

-164- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 comparted with competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a

2 balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a

3 starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to

4 establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing

5 must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior

6 Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

7 Pitt does not have a privacy interest in his communications with Malchar about

8 allegations of abuse filed by Pitt’s ex-wife in court. Pitt did not identify such an interest

9 during the meet-and-confer process. On the other hand, and as discussed above, Jolie has a

10 compelling interest in obtaining these communications to show the factfinder the link

11 between the Offer of Proof she filed, Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA, and why the deal

12 to purchase her interest in Miraval ultimately fell apart. These docum ents will also help
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 establish Jolie’s state of mind, defend against Pitt’s request for punitive damages on the
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 ground that Jolie was acting maliciously when she sold to a third party, and help Jolie

15 establish the factual predicates for her affirmative defenses, including unclean hands,

16 excuse of performance, and unconscionability.

17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54:

18 YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with anyone else (excluding the Court in the DIVORCE

19 CASE) concerning Petitioner’s Offer of Proof and Authority in Support Thereof Re: Testimony

20 Regarding Domestic Violence that Jolie filed under seal in the DIVORCE CASE on or about

21 March 12, 2021.

22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54:

23 In addition to the General Objections and Objections to Instructions and Definitions,

24 which are incorporated herein, Pitt specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

25 overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, not reasonably

26 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly oppressive and

27 harassing because the information it seeks is wholly irrelevant to the parties’ claims or defenses

28 in this action.

-165- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 Pitt further objects to this Request to the extent it would require Pitt to search for and

2 provide information that is publicly available, is equally available to or already in the possession

3 of Jolie, or is equally obtainable from third parties or from some source other than Pitt that is

4 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Pitt further objects to this Request to the

5 extent it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the right of privacy under the

6 Constitution of the State of California.

7 REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE IS NECESSARY:

8 In February 2021, Jolie agreed to sell Pitt her half-interest in Chateau Miraval. In March

9 2021, Pitt “stepped back” from the agreement, then demanded an NDA from Jolie that would

10 cover Pitt’s personal conduct. The reason for Pitt’s demand is simple: On March 12, 2021, as

11 part of the couple’s ongoing child custody dispute, Jolie filed under seal two “Offers of Proof”

12 detailing the evidence of Pitt’s domestic violence against Jolie and their children. When Jolie
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 filed the evidence in the custody suit, she was careful to file it under seal so that no member of
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 the public could see it. But Jolie’s sealed filing, which included emails, summaries of the

15 family’s expected testimony, and other evidence, caused Pitt to fear that the information could

16 eventually become public. For the previous five years and to protect their children’s health and

17 privacy, Jolie had never revealed to the public any details of Pitt’s abuse and related efforts to

18 cover it up. Nevertheless, Pitt was no longer willing to rely on Jolie’s voluntary efforts to

19 preserve the family’s privacy, and he attempted to leverage his buyout of Jolie’s interest in

20 Miraval to contractually bind her to remain silent essentially forever.

21 Pitt objects to this request on relevance grounds. “Any doubts about relevance are

22 generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158

23 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (2007). Evidence is relevant for discovery purposes “if it might

24 reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a

25 settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might

26 reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.” Glenfed Dev. Corp v. Superior Court, 53

27 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 (1997). See also John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1206

28 (2006) (evidence is discoverable “if it might reasonably lead to other, admissible

-166- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 evidence”).

2 Pitt’s communications with others about the Offers of Proof will be extremely important,

3 contemporaneous evidence that will help Jolie establish the link between the NDA Pitt

4 demanded and the abuse Pitt was hoping to bury. This evidence goes to the heart of the case,

5 especially if Pitt has communications with others where he spells out that link, which would

6 directly contradict his allegations in this case. Those communications are obviously relevant or

7 likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

8 Pitt also objects on the ground that the requested documents are publicly available or

9 equally available to Jolie. But Jolie does not have access to Pitt’s communications. The

10 documents are not publicly available and the Court should overrule this boilerplate objection.

11 Finally, Pitt objects that the request will invade his right to privacy. A “court should

12 not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely assertion of privacy.”
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1046 (1989). When assessing the
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 claimed privacy right, the “privacy interests [must] be specifically identified and carefully

15 comparted with competing our countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a

16 balancing test.” Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal.4th 37-38 (1994). As a

17 starting point, courts must first “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to

18 establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing

19 must weigh the countervailing interest the opposing party identifies.” Williams v. Superior

20 Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (2017).

21 Pitt does not have a privacy interest in his communications with others about

22 allegations of abuse filed by Pitt’s ex-wife in court. Pitt did not identify such an interest

23 during the meet-and-confer process. On the other hand, and as discussed above, Jolie has a

24 compelling interest in obtaining these communications to show the factfinder the link

25 between the Offer of Proof she filed, Pitt’s demand for a personal NDA, and why the deal

26 to purchase her interest in Miraval ultimately fell apart. These documents will also help

27 establish Jolie’s state of mind, defend against Pitt’s request for punitive damages on the

28 ground that Jolie was acting maliciously when she sold to a third party, and help Jolie

-167- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 establish the factual predicates for her affirmative defenses, including unclean hands,

2 excuse of performance, and unconscionability.

3 Respectfully submitted,

4 DATED: April 4, 2024 MURPHY ROSEN LLP

6 By:
Paul D. Murphy
7 Daniel N. Csillag
Stella Chang
8 Attorneys for Defendant and
Cross-Complainant Angelina Jolie
9

10

11

12
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-168- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTC FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PITT
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I, Christina M. Garibay, declare:

3
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
4 18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300,
Santa Monica, California 90401-1142, (310) 899-3300.
5
On April 4, 2024, I served the document(s) described as DEFENDANT AND
6 CROSS-COMPLAINANT ANGELINA JOLIE’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM WILLIAM B.
7 PITT TO FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS on the
interested parties in this action:
8
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
9

10 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused the above-document(s) to be served via the

Los Angeles Superior Court’s electronic service provider, One Legal.
11
BY E-MAIL: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
12 e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the email
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

addresses listed above or on the attached service list. I did not receive within a reasonable time
13
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
14 unsuccessful.

15 [State] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the above is true and correct.
16
Executed on April 4, 2024, at Santa Monica, California.
17

18
______________________________
19 Christina M. Garibay

20
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

PROOF OF SERVICE
 1 SERVICE LIST

2 William B. Pitt, et al. v. Angelina Jolie, et al.

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV06081
3

4 John V. Berlinski Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross-

BIRD MARELLA RHOW LICENBERG Defendants William B. Pitt, Mondo Bongo,
5 DROOKS & NESSIM LLP LLC and Cross-Defendant Warren Grant
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
6 Los Angeles, CA 90067
T: (310) 201-2100 F: (310) 201-2110
7
jberlinski@birdmarella.com
8 BTeachout@birdmarella.com
jcherlow@birdmarella.com
9 fwang@birdmarella.com
skosmacher@birdmarella.com
10 KMeyer@birdmarella.com
PYates@birdmarella.com
11
RAttarson@birdmarella.com
12
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201

William Savitt (admitted pro hac vice)

100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Jonathan Moses (admitted pro hac vice)

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

Sarah K. Eddy (admitted pro hac vice)

14 Adam L. Goodman (admitted pro hac vice)
15 Remy Grosbard (admitted pro hac vice)
Jessica L. Layden (admitted pro hac vice)
16 WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019
17 T: (212) 403-1000 F: (212) 403-2000
wdsavitt@wlrk.com
18 jmmoses@wlrk.com
19 skeddy@wlrk.com
algoodman@wlrk.com
20 rkgrosbard@wlrk.com
jllayden@wlrk.com
21
Mark T. Drooks Attorneys appearing specially to challenge
22 BIRD MARELLA RHOW LICENBERG jurisdiction on behalf of Cross-Defendants
23 DROOKS & NESSIM LLP Marc-Olivier Perrin, SAS Miraval
1875 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Provence, SAS Miraval Studios, SAS
24 Angeles, CA 90067 Familles Perrin, SAS Distilleries de la
Tel: (212) 957-7600 Riviera, Sas Petrichor, SASU Le Domaine,
25 mdrooks@birdmarella.com and Vins et Domaines Perrin SC
26

27

28

-2- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

PROOF OF SERVICE
 1 S. Gale Dick (admitted pro hac vice) Attorneys appearing specially to challenge
COHEN & GRESSER jurisdiction on behalf of Cross-Defendants
2 800 Third Ave. Marc-Olivier Perrin, SAS Miraval
New York, NY 10022 Provence, and SAS Familles Perrin
3
sgdick@cohengresser.com
4
Joe H. Tuffaha Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-
5 Prashanth Chennakesavan Complainant Nouvel, LLC and appearing
LTL ATTORNEYS LLP specially to challenge jurisdiction on
6 300 South Grand Avenue Suite 1400 behalf of Defendant Tenute del Mondo
Los Angeles, CA 90071 B.V., SPI Group Holding, Ltd., Yuri
7
T: (213) 612-8900 F: (213) 612-3773 Shelfer and Alexey Oliynik
8 joe.tuffaha@ltlattorneys.com
prashanth.chennakesavan@ltlattorneys.com
9
Keith R. Hummel
10 Justin C. Clarke
Jonathan Mooney
11
CRAVATH SWAINE AND MOORE LLP
12 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201

T: (212) 474-1000 F: (212) 474-3700

100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 khummel@cravath.com
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

jcclarke@cravath.com
14 jmooney@cravath.com
15

16

17

18

19

20
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

PROOF OF SERVICE