You are asking two questions:
Is Pitt somehow liable to Braddock for what Pitt may have done or known JoLie was doing? Maybe, but he would have had to breach a duty that he personally owed to Braddock under civil law. That is not clear even to the Plaintiff at present because Pitt wasn't named as a defendant so there is nothing at this time to indicate his involvement in any separate acts or in conjuction with JoLie or others to further the plaigarism. During the discovery process [the development of the evidence] something might turn up and if so, the plaintiff Braddock could ask leave of the court to name Pitt as an additional defendant.
Pitt would not normally be responsible for what the project did just because he may have helped fund the project. The funding agreements usually protect the shareholders from any personal liability and indemnify them [meaning the corporation GK or whoever is soliciting the funds agrees to pay the backer's legal fees for any defense if the backer named in a suit and pay the backer's portion of any judgment]. Think Enron. No ?Enron shareholders were held personally responsible just because they held shares in the corporation, no matter how many shares, without separate criminal acts or acts with civil liability attached. That's why corporations are able to get away with so much.
Can his assets be touched to pay any judgment against JoLie? Not unless they are married by the time of any collection of a judgment. Then all community property of the marriage can usually be attached to pay a judgment against one of the parties to the marriage. The community property begins with the date of the marriage. Any of Pitt's separate assets at the time of the marriage are not converted into community assets unless there is a specific written agreement of the parties [especially if real estate is involved] or by their continual use of the separate property as if it were community property during a legally significant period of time. [This is a very complicated issue with lots of accounting involved, but provable and involves delving into sensitive financial stuff and personal behaviors that most people are loathe to have made known to others.] The brand have kept their finances formally separate so far and I think this is an unlikely and highly remote possiblity, not a likelihood, that they would join them after marriage. Remember GK Films is a also defendant and it has deep pockets [Tx oil billionaire Tim Headington who is very fond of the brand.]. JoLie has separate assets of her own too. Everything depends on the finances when any judgment occurs and is being collected. No attachment can occur until after a judgment is entered by the court.
IMO this case will be settled. Well over 90% of all civil matters are settled before a trial. After an initial period of feet dragging designed to increase expense to the plaintiff and make it clear the case will be expensive for him to pursue, the defendants will offer Braddock a settlement. Courts push mediation and settlement really hard because it clears their calendars and the parties usually reach an agreement that both will be able to live with. A sticking point could be a confidentiality clause in any settlement agreement. Defendants usually want to protect themselves from disclosure of the amount of a settlement and from any admission of liabiliy on their part for the underlying cause of action. In this case since it is a blot on a writer's career to be charged with plaigarism, JoLie will not want to have the details revealed or admit liability. GK Films has a similar interest. Braddock wants to have public acknowledgement of the plaigarism now to protect his reputation, but that means a continued willingness to spend the money necessary to pursue the case through all appeals which takes years. A lot depends on the cost of the litigation which can be dragged out.
A settlement is generally viewed as a victory for the plaintiff by the public on the theory of why pay something if you did nothing wrong. That is usually a correct assessment. However a settlement it is not as satisfying to a plaintiff as a judgment of liability. It is money in hand without further costs or risks of litigation. No one can predict what a jury will do. No one.
I was curious what might be possible............R.
