In the latest twist of the protracted legal battle over Château Miraval, a Michigan judge ruled in May that lawyers for Stoli Group improperly blocked testimony during a December 2024 deposition , according to court documents exclusively obtained by Page Six. The judge determined that attorney-client privilege did not extend to the “business aspects” of Angelina Jolie’s 2021 sale of her indirect interest in the French winery to Stoli’s wine division, Tenute del Mondo. Former Stoli General Counsel Todd Culyba was instructed not to answer 33 questions about the deal, including queries about the involvement of Yuri Shelfer, Stoli’s ultimate beneficial owner.

33 Questions Blocked, and the Judge’s Rationale

The Michigan judge’s May 20 ruling specifically found that Culyba was improperly instructed to avoid answering 33 questions during a December deposition . The blocked questions centered on the business mechanics of Jolie’s sale, particularly any role played by Yuri Shelfer. According to Page Six, the judge ruled that the attorney-client privilege “did not extend to the ‘business aspects’ of the deal,” which the court said were fair game for questioning. The motion to enforce the deposition was denied without prejudice, meaning Brad Pitt can raise the issue again.

The Stoli Connection and Yuri Shelfer’s Role

At the heart of the deposition dispute is the involvement of Stoli Group, the Russian-founded spirits company that angelina Jolie sold her Miraval shares to in 2021. The court documents identify Yuri Shelfer as Stoli’s ultimate beneficial owner, and his potential hand in the sale is a key unresolved fact. Pitt’s lawsuit, filed in 2022, cllaims Jolie violated a prior agreement that neither would sell their stake without the other’s approval. Jolie has denied such an agreement and countersued, accusing Pitt of “waging a vindictive war” against her, as Page Six reported. The ruling now forces Stoli’s former general counsel to answer those 33 questions, potentially shedding light on Shelfer’s involvement.

What the ‘Prior Agreement’ Claim Really Means

Pitt’s central allegation is that he and Jolie had an explicit oral or written understanding that neither would transfer their Miraval interest without mutual consent. Jolie has repeatedly denied this, and her countersuit paints Pitt as the aggressor. The judge’s latest ruling undermines Stoli’s attempt to shield business communications behind attorney-client privilege, but it does not settle whether the prior agreement existed. The motion was denied without prejudice, meaning Pitt can resubmit it. Meanwhile, in December 2025,a separate judge ordered Jolie to turn over unredacted non-attorney emails related to the winery dispute, as Page Six noted.

Open Question : What Did the Blocked Depositions Hide?

While the ruling is a procedural win for Pitt, it leaves several key questions unanswered. first, what exactly were the 33 blocked questions? The source only specifies that they involved Yuri Shelfer and the business aspects of the sale, but the full content remains sealed. Second, why did Stoli’s legal team believe attorney-client privilege protected those topics? The judge’s decision suggests they were overreaching, but Stoli may appeal or seek to limit the scope. Third, Jolie’s claim that Pitt has waged a “vindictive war” remains unaddressed in this ruling; the deposition ruling does not touch on her counterclaims. Until Culyba actually testifies, the full story of Shelfer’s involvement remains unknown.

As Page Six reported, the case now moves toward further discovery. pitt and Jolie finalized their divorce in December 2024, but the legal fight over Miraval continues to generate new rulings, each peeling back another layer of the complex financial and personal dispute.