Judge Orders Stoli Exec Back to Deposition in Brad Pitt-Angelina Jolie Winery Fight

The Château Miraval legal saga between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie just landed another plot twist—and this time, it favors the actor. On May 20, a Michigan judge ruled that Todd Culyba, former general counsel for Stoli Group, must return for a continued deposition to answer questions he previously avoided. It’s a small but meaningful win in what’s become a years-long courtroom chess match over a French winery.

Here’s what went down: During a December 2025 deposition, Culyba was instructed not to answer 33 questions about Yuri Shefler’s involvement in Jolie’s 2021 sale of her stake in Château Miraval to a Stoli subsidiary. Pitt’s legal team argued those questions were blocked improperly—and the judge agreed. The court determined that attorney-client privilege didn’t extend to the“business aspects”of the deal, meaning those previously off-limits topics are now fair game. Culyba will sit for up to one hour in person to tackle the questions that pages 3 through 6 of Pitt’s motion identify, plus any reasonable follow-ups.

One caveat: The judge denied Pitt’s request for sanctions against Stoli Group’s attorneys, so while he got the deposition access he wanted, there won’t be any penalty for the improper guidance in the first place.

The roots of this dispute run deep. Pitt filed his original lawsuit back in 2022, claiming that Jolie sold her share of the French winery without his approval, violating an agreement between the exes. Jolie countersued, denying the allegations. The couple was married from 2014 to 2016 and share six children. Since then, the legal proceedings have involved multiple discovery disputes, including a December court order requiring Jolie to produce unredacted versions of her non-attorney communications about the sale. Though earlier this month, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied Pitt’s request to overturn Jolie’s private emails, ruling he hadn’t met the burden of proof to overcome attorney-client privilege claims.

These kinds of incremental victories matter in protracted litigation. Each ruling that forces testimony or disclosure narrows the other side’s ability to control the narrative—or, in this case, to shield potentially damaging information about how the transaction unfolded. For Pitt, getting Culyba back on the stand represents another opening to build his case that the sale was conducted without his input.