Bryant's counsel to Berg's attorney: 'Describing in detail what I contend is confidential before the Order is in place would defeat the very purpose of having a confidentiality order'

On December 22, 2025, Patrick Bryant's attorneys at Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP (Nosizi Ralephata, Matthew Gallo, and William J. Blount) e-filed a seven-page brief in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas opposing Plaintiff Alexis Berg's motion for a blanket confidentiality order in Berg v. Bryant, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124, before Judge Donald B. Hocker. The full 48-page filing, which includes as exhibits a compilation of counsel emails (Exhibit A), the John Mason Long affidavit (Exhibit D), and sample Mace-Berg text messages (Exhibit E), is linked in Sources below.

The brief's central argument is that the photographs and recordings Berg now seeks to seal have already been made public. Bryant's counsel writes that Mace, with Berg's "knowledge and consent," described and displayed the photographs during Mace's February and May 2025 congressional speeches, and that Berg and Mace's "11-month media frenzy" had "calculated to win the court of public opinion before the lawsuit was filed."

The filing

Page 1 of the opposition, with the case caption. E-filed December 22, 2025, 3:48 PM, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas.

Page 3. Bryant's brief argues the photographs were displayed by Mace during her 2025 congressional appearances. The surveillance still reproduced on the page is redacted here.

Page 4, addressing the alleged assault video and the Nest camera photographs.

Page 6, on Mace's alleged drafting and revision of the complaint allegations and Bryant's limited agreement to protect medical records.

Page 7, the conclusion and signature page, signed by Ralephata, Gallo, and Blount of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, dated December 22, 2025.

What the brief argues

On the photographs, the brief states that the images "do not require a confidential designation because Mace, with Plaintiff's knowledge and consent, described and displayed them during her February and May 2025 speeches before Congress," asking: "How can photographs that have been shared and viewed by millions of Americans now be confidential?"

On the alleged video, the brief states flatly:

"Berg's alleged assault video does not exist and never has existed."

The brief goes further, arguing that Berg "testified that she has never seen or possessed a video depicting her alleged assault" and that Berg herself testified Mace did not take a copy because "Mace thought it would be wrong to store a video of sexual assault" and "Mace was worried about what would happened to her if someone thought she stole [Bryant's] phone." Bryant's brief treats that as an admission that contradicts the premise of the confidentiality motion: if the video does not exist, the alleged assault video cannot be among the confidential documents to be protected. Berg, Mace, and all named parties deny Bryant's characterization of these facts; the underlying allegations remain contested.

On the other videos at issue, the brief states that the only videos Berg intends to produce "were stolen by Mace off Bryant's phone and depict other women's private, sexual affairs with Bryant," and that none of those women "have come forward or accused Bryant of a crime." The brief notes that Bryant had filed a separate Motion for Protective Order on that issue, returnable December 30.

On Mace and Berg's communications, the brief contends that Mace was "actively drafting and revising the allegations" in the complaint in text messages with Berg (citing Exhibit E), and that their communications "do not require a confidential designation." Bryant denies Berg's underlying claims; Mace and Berg deny Bryant's characterization.

Bryant's counsel states it "agrees that good cause exists for the entry of a confidentiality order concerning Plaintiff's medical records and therapy notes only," and that Bryant "remains willing to sign a watered-down version of Plaintiff's Confidentiality Order which restricts the disclosure of Plaintiff's health records."

Six weeks of counsel emails (Exhibit A)

The core of the filing, by page count, is Exhibit A: a 23-page compilation of emails between Bryant's counsel and Berg's attorney Marybeth Mullaney, documenting the dispute from November 13 through December 17, 2025.

Exhibit A, p. 30. Mullaney to Ralephata, November 25, 2025: stating her intent to produce the photographs and videos at issue.

In a November 25 email, Mullaney explained her refusal to identify which specific documents she intended to designate confidential:

"Describing in detail what I contend is confidential before the Order is in place would defeat the very purpose of having a confidentiality order."

Exhibit A, p. 32. Mullaney's November 25 email explaining why she would not itemize confidential documents in advance.

In the same email chain, Mullaney stated her reason for producing the photographs and videos of other women:

"Evidence that Mr. Bryant photographed other women's private parts without their knowledge or consent goes directly to the truth of my client's statements and is admissible evidence I intend to introduce at trial."

Bryant's brief characterizes this as an attempt to use the confidentiality order "to produce irrelevant photographs and videos of other women" pending the Motion for Protective Order.

Exhibit A, p. 37. Gallo's November 26 monthly discovery update to Judge Hocker, noting the intent to serve a SLED subpoena.

On November 26, Gallo wrote directly to Judge Hocker with a monthly discovery update and noted that Bryant's counsel "circulated to the parties an intent to serve a subpoena on SLED and absent any objection, we intend to serve the subpoena on December 5."

Exhibit A, p. 41. Gallo's December 17 reply on the Mace-Berg first call recording, stating Mace "shockingly admitted to it on the recording."

By mid-December, the dispute had shifted to the April 2024 Mace-Berg telephone recording. On December 17, Mullaney wrote to other counsel asking them to delete the recording, asserting it was covered by a confidentiality order in the related ADW v. Berg matter. Gallo replied that his office "will not be deleting the recording" and that "there is nothing confidential about it." Mediator Jay Jones weighed in, describing the recording as "central" to the Berg v. Bryant case and suggesting the parties agree informally to share it among counsel.

Exhibit A, p. 43. Mullaney's December 17 comprehensive reply, asserting confidentiality over the recording and invoking the ADW v. Berg protective order.

In the same December 17 chain, when Rene Dukes, attorney for another defendant, asked Mullaney "Why is this confidential?", Mullaney replied:

"This is confidential for obvious reasons. It contains a conversation about a woman learning that she was sexually assaulted."

Exhibit A, p. 47. The December 17 exchange between Mullaney and Dukes on the confidentiality designation of the Mace-Berg recording.

All contested characterizations in these emails are each party's own stated position in litigation, filed in a public court record.

The underlying litigation is ongoing. All allegations in Berg v. Bryant (Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124) and related matters are unproven and disputed; Bryant denies Berg's claims; Berg, Mace, Britton, and all named parties deny Bryant's allegations and the characterizations in his filings; no matter has been adjudicated. A separate South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigation is ongoing. Nothing here is a finding of fact.

Sources and related coverage:

• The filing itself: Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Patrick Bryant's Response and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of a Confidentiality Order (PDF, 48 pages), Berg v. Bryant, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas No. 2025-CP-10-03124, e-filed December 22, 2025, 3:48 PM.
• Case hub: Berg v. Bryant, 2025-CP-10-03124.
• The April 2024 Mace-Berg telephone recording referenced in Exhibit A is the subject of a related dispatch: The Mace-Berg First Call.
• The state docket is verifiable on the SC Judicial Branch Public Index (Charleston County) under Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124.