Part of: Mace Federal Removal (Berg v. Bryant → D.S.C.) · Berg v. Bryant (and Bryant's Third-Party Complaint against Mace) · Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg · Musgrave v. Mace (2:25-cv-01823-RMG) · Litigation Overview & Court-Filing Index
Patrick Bryant: 'Today I authorized my attorneys to file a temporary restraining order against Nancy Ruth Mace'
On November 17, 2025, Judge Donald B. Hocker entered an order in Berg v. Bryant ending pseudonym use in the case, ruling that the identities of the plaintiff and a witness were already known to the public. Bryant announced a temporary restraining order motion the same day.
Reporting by ABC News 4 and FITSNews covered the ruling and the related filings.
On November 17, 2025, Judge Donald B. Hocker of the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas entered an order in Berg v. Bryant (No. 2025-CP-10-03124) that ended the use of pseudonyms in the case. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym and granted defendant Patrick Bryant's motion to identify the "Jane Doe Witness," finding that the identities of both the plaintiff and the witness "are already known to all Parties and the public such that neither Plaintiff nor Jane Doe Witness have any privacy interest to preserve." From the date of the order, all future filings were required to use the parties' true and correct names.
Bryant announced a motion for a temporary restraining order against Rep. Nancy Mace on the same day and described the pseudonym ruling publicly.
The Order
Page 1 of the order, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas. Caption: "Order Denying Plaintiff Jane Doe's Motion to Proceed Under a Pseudonym and Granting Defendant Patrick Bryant's Motion to Identify 'Jane Doe Witness.'"
Page 2: legal standard and findings. The court cited James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 1993) and Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 2014) on the public right of access to judicial proceedings.
Page 3: ruling and signature. "Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under a Pseudonym is DENIED, and Defendant Bryant's Motion to Identify is GRANTED." Signed by the Honorable Donald B. Hocker. "IT IS SO ORDERED."
Page 4: South Carolina electronic-filing certification. Charleston Common Pleas, Case No. 2025CP1003124, "Order/Other," electronically signed by Circuit Court Judge s/Donald B. Hocker (Judge Code 2167) on November 17, 2025. The "Electronically Filed" stamp runs down the right margin of every page.
Bryant's Announcement
On November 17, 2025, Bryant posted publicly about the ruling and his restraining order motion:
Patrick Bryant's public Facebook post, November 17, 2025, reproduced from facebook.com/bpatrickbryant; he posted the same statement on X. The verbatim text follows.
"Today I authorized my attorneys to file a temporary restraining order against Nancy Ruth Mace in hopes of stopping her lies, which I know the whole world appreciates."
On the pseudonym ruling:
"And I just learned this morning that the judge ruled that 'Jane Doe', who is Alexis 'Ali' Berg, can no longer remain anonymous. The same applies to the 'witness,' Melissa Britton. From this point forward, there are no Jane Does. All parties must be referred to by their real names."
On his motion against Mace:
"This restraining order is intended to prevent Nancy Ruth Mace from continuing to publish baseless claims about me on social media without offering a single piece of actual evidence. For two years she has used her platforms to defame me while producing nothing to support her allegations."
Bryant attached the caption page of his motion to the post. By that filing, the case caption already used the parties' real names, as the court's order required:
Caption page of Bryant's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (and Renewed Motion for In Camera Review), Berg v. Bryant, No. 2025-CP-10-03124, the image Bryant attached to his post. The caption reads "Alexis Berg, Plaintiff/Counterclaimee" and "Nancy Ruth Mace and Melissa Britton, Third Party Defendants," using the parties' real names following the de-anonymization order.
Mace denies Bryant's allegations and Bryant denies Mace's. No related criminal charges have been filed against Bryant. The dispute is the subject of ongoing civil litigation. See Berg v. Bryant (No. 2025-CP-10-03124).
Sources and related coverage
- The order itself: Order Denying Pseudonym Motion and Granting Motion to Identify (PDF, 4 pages), Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124, Judge Donald B. Hocker, entered November 17, 2025.
- ABC News 4: coverage of the restraining order filing
- FITSNews: "Where Is the Video? Court Filings Challenge Nancy Mace's Story" (November 18, 2025)
- Patrick Bryant on X: Bryant's announcement post
- Patrick Bryant on Facebook: source of the quoted statement above
- Case hub: Berg v. Bryant (No. 2025-CP-10-03124)
Read next
December 19, 2025 · DispatchIn her own sworn Answer, Mace admits she 'placed an air tag on Bryant's car for one day in August 2023'
In her December 19, 2025 Answer to Patrick Bryant's Third-Party Complaint, Rep. Nancy Mace admits under oath that she placed a tracking device on Bryant's car and attempted to access his laptop, while denying Bryant's allegation that she intended to weaponize what she found. The filing is Mace's own account, in her own words, on the public court record.
December 1, 2025 · DispatchWhile under the gag order, Mace's congressional office sends a mass newsletter about the case: 'I WILL NOT be silenced.'
On December 1, 2025, while the Berg v. Bryant gag order was in effect, a mass email newsletter from Rep. Nancy Mace's congressional office, headlined 'Rep. Nancy Mace says 2 more women accuse her ex-fiancé of abuse,' named Patrick Bryant, recited unproven allegations, and declared 'I WILL NOT be silenced.' Bryant and Bowman's January 12, 2026 contempt motion attaches the newsletter as Exhibit 8, contending it violated the gag order.
November 26, 2025 · DispatchUnder four hours after the gag order reached her lawyer, Mace posts about a co-defendant's bond: 'Not nearly enough.'
On November 26, 2025, the same day Judge Donald B. Hocker entered a sua sponte gag order in Berg v. Bryant and circulated it to all counsel at 2:23 p.m. Rep. Nancy Mace replied at 6:43 p.m. from her verified @RepNancyMace account to a post reporting that co-defendant Eric Bowman had been granted bond on domestic-violence and harassment charges, writing: 'Not nearly enough. Very concerned for the safety of his victims. Keeping them in my prayers tonight.' A contempt motion filed January 12, 2026 attaches the post as Exhibit 3 and contends it violated the order within hours of its issuance; Mace disputes both the motion and the validity of the order, calling it unconstitutional and unenforceable.
November 14, 2025 · DispatchPatrick Bryant publishes Mace's emails to his lawyers: 'You poked the wrong bear. And you will pay dearly.'
On November 14, 2025, Patrick Bryant published screenshots of emails he said a sitting Member of Congress sent to his attorneys and process server, including a profanity-laced reply to a cease-and-desist letter, an email authorizing service on two attorneys, and a reply from one of those attorneys stating she does not represent Mace. The screenshots are reproduced below; the allegations on every side are disputed and unproven.
- November 6, 2025 · Dispatch
Patrick Bryant: 'Today I filed a counterclaim and third-party complaint… Where is the evidence?'
On November 6, 2025, Patrick Bryant announced he had filed a counterclaim and third-party complaint in Charleston County Court against Nancy Mace and alleged co-conspirators, denying he had ever assaulted anyone and demanding evidence.
March 9, 2025 · DispatchPatrick Bryant shares P&C report: Mace 'declined to answer' on private vs. taxpayer-funded defense
On March 9, 2025, Patrick Bryant shared a Post & Courier report on the legal exposure facing Rep. Nancy Mace after her House floor speech, spotlighting that her office declined to say whether she would use a private or taxpayer-funded attorney.