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, ANGELINA JOLIE’S OBJECTION TO

THE IMPROPERLY FILED
15 vs. DECLARATION OF TONY WEBB IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
16 ANGELINA JOLIE, an individual, and TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF
NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited DOCUMENTS
17 liability company,
Date: May 16, 2024
18 Defendants. Time: 9:00 A.M.
Dept: 3
19

20

21
AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS. Reservation ID: 257097942103
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

ANGELINA JOLIE’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF TONY WEBB
 1 OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF TONY WEBB

2 Defendant and Cross-Complainant Angelina Jolie objects to, and moves to strike, the

3 Declaration of Tony Webb that Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant William B. Pitt filed in support

4 of his Reply re Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production of Documents. Pitt

5 clearly is trying to gain an unfair advantage by offering this contested evidence for the first

6 time on reply when Jolie has no opportunity to respond. The law is crystal clear that this form

7 of evidence sandbagging grossly violates due process of law and should be struck. “The

8 general rule of motion practice is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.” Maleti

9 v. Wickers, 82 Cal.App.5th 181, 228 (2022) (ellipses in quotation omitted) (quoting Jay v.

10 Mahaffey, 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537 (2013)). “While the code provides for reply papers, it

11 makes no allowance for submitting additional evidence or filing a supplemental separate

12 statement.” San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 313
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 (2002) (emphasis added). This is because, if considered by the Court, evidence filed for the
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 first time in a reply violates the opposing party’s due process rights. Id. at 316.

15 Substantively, the Webb declaration has no relevance to this case or to the issue

16 presented by Pitt’s motion. In fact, the Webb declaration, which does not mention the word

17 “Miraval” a single time, serves to demonstrate exactly why other NDAs involving other parties

18 and other circumstances are irrelevant and will—as Jolie predicted in her opposition brief—

19 cause a mini-trial on each and every NDA Pitt claims is relevant to this case. The Webb

20 declaration illustrates the point: Pitt is now claiming that conversations with two “contractors”

21 (security guards) about testimony in a different case are somehow relevant here. Jolie contests

22 the testimony’s relevance, its credibility (Webb works for Pitt), and its accuracy. To resolve

23 this, the Court would have to have a mini-trial on this issue alone, yet none of it explains

24 whether Pitt’s demand for an expanded NDA from Jolie as a condition of purchasing her

25 interest in Miraval was the reason the deal they had struck fell apart.

26

27

28

-2- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

ANGELINA JOLIE’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF TONY WEBB
 1 If this evidence truly was relevant and material to Pitt’s motion, he would have—

2 indeed, was required to—offer it in his moving papers. That he did not do so tells the Court all

3 it needs to know about the strength of Pitt’s motion and, frankly, his true purpose in filing the

4 Webb declaration—to create a press event and again put external pressure on Jolie. The

5 declaration is irrelevant and violates Jolie’s due process rights. The Court should strike the

6 declaration.

8 Respectfully submitted,

9 DATED: May 9, 2024 MURPHY ROSEN LLP

10

11 By:
Paul D. Murphy
12 Daniel N. Csillag
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201

Stella Chang
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Attorneys for Defendant and

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

Cross-Complainant Angelina Jolie

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

ANGELINA JOLIE’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF TONY WEBB
 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
18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300,
4 Santa Monica, California 90401-1142, (310) 899-3300.

5 On May 9, 2024, I served the document(s) described as ANGELINA JOLIE’S

OBJECTION TO THE IMPROPERLY FILED DECLARATION OF TONY WEBB IN
6 SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS on the interested parties in this action:
7

8 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

9
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused the above-document(s) to be served via the
10 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 e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the
12 email addresses listed above or on the attached service list. I did not receive within a
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201

reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 transmission was unsuccessful.

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 [State] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the above is true and correct.
15
Executed on May 9, 2024, at Santa Monica, California.
16

17
Christina M. Garibay
18

19

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
John V. Berlinski Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross-
4 BIRD MARELLA RHOW LICENBERG Defendants William B. Pitt, Mondo Bongo,
DROOKS & NESSIM LLP LLC and Cross-Defendant Warren Grant
5 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
6 Los Angeles, CA 90067
T: (310) 201-2100 F: (310) 201-2110
7 jberlinski@birdmarella.com
BTeachout@birdmarella.com
8 jcherlow@birdmarella.com
fwang@birdmarella.com
9 skosmacher@birdmarella.com
KMeyer@birdmarella.com
10 PYates@birdmarella.com
RAttarson@birdmarella.com
11
Jonathan Moses (admitted pro hac vice)
12 Adam L. Goodman (admitted pro hac vice)
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201

Jessica L. Layden (admitted pro hac vice)

100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Ioannis D. Drivas (pending pro hac vice

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

application)
14
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
15 51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
16 T: (212) 403-1000 F: (212) 403-2000
jmmoses@wlrk.com
17 algoodman@wlrk.com
jllayden@wlrk.com
18
iddrivas@wlrk.com
19
Mark T. Drooks Attorneys appearing specially to challenge
20 BIRD MARELLA RHOW LICENBERG jurisdiction on behalf of Cross-Defendants
DROOKS & NESSIM LLP Marc-Olivier Perrin, SAS Miraval
21 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Provence, SAS Miraval Studios, SAS
Los Angeles, CA 90067 Familles Perrin, SAS Distilleries de la
22
Tel: (212) 957-7600 Riviera, Sas Petrichor, SASU Le Domaine,
23 mdrooks@birdmarella.com and Vins et Domaines Perrin SC

24

25

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

6
Joe H. Tuffaha Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-
7 Prashanth Chennakesavan Complainant Nouvel, LLC and appearing
LTL ATTORNEYS LLP specially to challenge jurisdiction on
8 300 South Grand Avenue Suite 1400 behalf of Defendant Tenute del Mondo
Los Angeles, CA 90071 B.V., SPI Group Holding, Ltd., Yuri
9 T: (213) 612-8900 F: (213) 612-3773 Shelfer and Alexey Oliynik
joe.tuffaha@ltlattorneys.com
10
prashanth.chennakesavan@ltlattorneys.com
11
Keith R. Hummel
12 Justin C. Clarke
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201

Jonathan Mooney
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 CRAVATH SWAINE AND MOORE LLP

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

825 Eighth Avenue

14
New York, NY 10019
15 T: (212) 474-1000 F: (212) 474-3700
khummel@cravath.com
16 jcclarke@cravath.com
jmooney@cravath.com
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

PROOF OF SERVICE