Part of: 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
Mace Calls ADW's Breach-of-Contract Suit a 'Fishing Expedition,' Moves to Dismiss It, Despite Not Being a Party
On January 27, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace, not a party to ADW v. Berg, a breach-of-contract case between her company and a former employee, filed an Emergency Motion to Intervene, seeking to dismiss the suit, impose sanctions on both sides' attorneys, and block all discovery. Mace signed the motion herself, as a pro se litigant, and certified that she had skipped the required meet-and-confer with opposing counsel because, in her judgment, it 'would not be productive.' ADW v. Berg is a civil case in Charleston County; no findings of fact have been made.
A sitting member of Congress, not named as a party in a breach-of-contract lawsuit, walked into Charleston County Court of Common Pleas on January 27, 2026, and asked a judge to throw the case out, calling it a sham designed to benefit her ex-fiancé. The filed motion is reproduced in full below; the original PDF is available here.
"ADW's lawsuit is not a legitimate defamation action, it is a fishing expedition designed to circumvent privilege protections and obtain discovery that Mr. Bryant could not otherwise obtain and to violate Rep. Mace's rights."
, Mace's motion states, Emergency Motion to Intervene, p. 11-12
The case is ADW v. Berg, a breach-of-contract dispute filed by Assignment Desk Works, LLC against Alexis Berg, a former employee of Patrick Bryant, over an alleged violation of a non-disparagement clause. Mace is not a plaintiff, not a defendant, and not named anywhere in the underlying contract. Her January 27 filing sought to intervene, dismiss the complaint in full, enter a protective order, and impose Rule 11 sanctions on the attorneys for both ADW and Berg.
The motion is notable for what Mace did not do before filing: consult with the opposing parties. South Carolina procedural rules require a movant to confer with opposing counsel before filing certain motions. Mace, signing the motion herself as a pro se litigant and identifying herself as "REPRESENTATIVE NANCY R. MACE, Member of Congress," addressed that requirement in a single sentence in the certification section:
"In the undersigned's professional judgment, consultation here would not be productive."
, Mace's motion states, Emergency Motion to Intervene, certification section
A companion Motion to Stay, filed the same day and bearing the same signature block, elaborated on that judgment:
"Both parties have demonstrated that they will not protect Rep. Mace's privileged materials. Under these circumstances, consultation would serve no useful purpose."
, Mace's motion states, Motion to Stay, January 27, 2026
The motion, as filed
Page 1 of 16, the SCCA 233 Motion and Order Information Form and Coversheet, case number 2025-CP-10-02671.
Page 2 of 16, the case caption (Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg, No. 2025-CP-10-02671) and the opening paragraph identifying Mace as the "Proposed Intervenor," moving pro se for emergency intervention under Rule 24, SCRCP. FILED stamp visible at right.
Page 3 of 16, Mace argues the ADW suit "mirrors prior litigation abuse" that produced ~$48,000 in sanctions against Bryant's former counsel in the GLT2 matter, and that Bryant "created shell companies and filed frivolous petitions."
Page 4 of 16, factual background: Mace's House floor speech of February 10, 2025, and GLT2's formation the following day.
Page 5 of 16, the Rule 24 intervention analysis: Mace argues her interests are not represented by any existing party.
Page 6 of 16, Mace argues Berg's counsel "improperly obtained and disclosed Rep. Mace's privileged materials to the very person the Court has already found weaponizes such information."
Page 7 of 16, the attorney-client privilege section; Mace argues her communications with counsel were disclosed to Bryant without her consent.
Page 8 of 16, Mace argues Interrogatory No. 12, demanding information about recordings of John Osborne and Eric Bowman, "proves, on its face, that this lawsuit is not a legitimate action, it is a fishing expedition designed to learn the scope of the criminal investigation."
Page 9 of 16, argument that ADW's requests for production "focus on her communications, her relationships with other victims, and evidence she has provided to law enforcement."
Page 10 of 16, Mace argues the interrogatories "are designed to find out what evidence exists against Bryant, Osborne, and Bowman in the criminal investigation, not to defend a defamation claim."
Page 11 of 16, begins the Motion to Dismiss section; the "fishing expedition" passage appears at the bottom of this page and carries over to p. 12.
Page 12 of 16, the quote concludes: "…circumvent privilege protections and obtain discovery that Mr. Bryant could not otherwise obtain and to violate Rep. Mace's rights."
Page 13 of 16, Mace argues ADW's counsel violated Rule 11's good-faith signing requirement.
Page 14 of 16, sanctions argument against Ms. Mullaney for allegedly handing Bryant what Mace's motion calls "privileged communications between the very women he victimized."
Page 15 of 16, the prayer for relief, listing nine requested orders including sanctions against both parties' counsel.
Page 16 of 16, Mace's signature as "REPRESENTATIVE NANCY R. MACE, Member of Congress, Pro Se," dated January 27, 2026, followed by the certification: "In the undersigned's professional judgment, consultation here would not be productive."
What the filing says
In making the case for dismissal, Mace's motion argued that ADW's discovery requests, which sought information about audio and video recordings of Patrick Bryant, John Osborne, and Eric Bowman, were not designed to litigate a contract dispute but to gather intelligence on a separate criminal investigation conducted by the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED). The motion invoked a prior sanctions order from a different case, GLT2 v. Mace, attributing approximately $48,000 in sanctions to Bryant's counsel. ADW's opposition filed later in the proceeding noted that Mace's own attached exhibit, the sanctions order itself, showed the payment was ordered from Bryant's former attorney Barrett Brewer, not from Bryant personally, and that the motion contained an internal contradiction on this point.
The allegations described in Mace's motion are contested. Patrick Bryant denies wrongdoing and has denied Mace's broader allegations; Mace and Bryant are parties to multiple overlapping civil lawsuits. No court has made findings of fact on the underlying claims. A SLED criminal investigation is ongoing. Nothing here is a finding of fact, and nothing here reflects the merits of any pending case. For background on the parties see People in the Public Record.
Sources & related coverage:
- The filing itself: Emergency Motion to Intervene, Motion to Dismiss, and for Sanctions (PDF, 16 pages, motion; 82 pages including exhibits), Rep. Nancy R. Mace, pro se, Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 2025-CP-10-02671, filed January 27, 2026.
- The state docket is verifiable on the SC Judicial Branch Public Index (Charleston County) under Case No. 2025-CP-10-02671.
- Case background: The Litigation
Read next
January 27, 2026 · Dispatch'This Court Now Stands as the Only Barrier': Mace Files Sworn Emergency Motion to Gag Opposing Lawyers
On January 27, 2026, Nancy Mace filed a sworn, verified Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in the ADW v. Berg civil case, asking a Charleston County judge to bar opposing counsel, Patrick Bryant, and Berg's attorneys from accessing or using materials she called privileged. The motion — signed under oath by Mace personally — also places her gubernatorial candidacy on the official court record.
January 21, 2026 · DispatchIn a letter to the judge overseeing her gag order, Mace calls the court a 'Kangaroo Court' and moves the contempt matter to federal court: 'I will not be SILENCED.'
On January 21, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace wrote directly to Judge Donald B. Hocker, the Charleston County circuit judge presiding over Berg v. Bryant, the case in which she is a third-party defendant under a gag order, calling the court a 'Kangaroo Court,' declaring the gag order unconstitutional, and announcing she was removing the contempt proceeding against her to federal court. Mace wrote the letter pro se, after she says she had discharged her counsel; it was stamped FILED on the state docket January 22, 2026. The full five-page filing is reproduced below. The allegations underlying the litigation are disputed and contested; Mace denies Bryant's claims, and Bryant denies Mace's.
June 16, 2026 · DispatchCourt appoints former Judge Kristi Harrington as third-party neutral to sort the 11,000+ disputed files in Mace's Google Drive
On June 16, 2026, Judge Donald B. Hocker appointed Kristi Harrington, a Charleston attorney and former South Carolina Circuit Court judge, to serve as a 'third-party neutral' in Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg (Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, No. 2025-CP-10-2671), one of the cluster of cases tied to Rep. Nancy Mace and her former fiance, Patrick Bryant. Harrington's task is to review the more than 11,000 electronic files in what the court calls 'Mace's Google Drive,' files that both Mace and Bryant claim to own, and decide which, if any, must be turned over in discovery. The court split her fees between the two camps, warned the volume could make the process 'very cost-prohibitive,' and entered the order over Mace's objection. The order makes no finding on privilege, admissibility, ownership, or wrongdoing; the underlying allegations remain contested and unproven.
June 8, 2026 · DispatchGretchen Carlson, who helped write the Speak Out Act, files a sworn declaration backing Alexis Berg
On June 8, 2026, Alexis Berg's counsel filed a reply brief in Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg (No. 2025-CP-10-2671) arguing that the federal Speak Out Act makes the non-disparagement clause ADW is suing on judicially unenforceable, because the dispute before the court involves sexual-assault allegations. Attached was a sworn declaration from Gretchen Carlson, the former Fox News anchor whose 2016 case helped inspire the Act, who states she has met with Berg and that 'this is exactly the situation we fought to address,' and offers to testify. ADW argues the Act does not apply. The motion is undecided; the underlying allegations are contested and denied.
March 5, 2026 · Dispatch'To Simply Make Up a Legal Standard Is Inexcusable': Opposing Counsel Asks Court to Sanction Mace's Pro Se TRO Filing
In a March 5, 2026 response filed in ADW v. Berg, Assignment Desk Works' counsel Rene Dukes told a Charleston court that Rep. Nancy Mace's pro se emergency TRO motion cited a four-part legal standard that does not exist under South Carolina law, misrepresented a second case as supporting a doctrine it does not mention, and contradicted itself on whether an attorney-client relationship ever existed. Dukes asked the court to deny the motion and sanction Mace under Rule 11, the rule that requires any litigant, represented or not, to certify that a filing has good-faith legal and factual support.
- March 4, 2026 · Dispatch
For All the Accusations, 'Not One Woman Other Than Defendant Has Brought an Action Against Bryant, Including Mace'
In a two-page response filed March 4, 2026, ADW's counsel Rene Stuhr Dukes told a Charleston court that despite a coordinated effort by Ali Berg and Nancy Mace to level sexual-crime accusations against Patrick Bryant, no woman — including Mace herself — has filed a legal action against him. The filing is opposing counsel's argument, not a judicial finding; Bryant's denials and an open SLED investigation remain part of the record.