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
'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.
On January 27, 2026, Nancy Mace — appearing pro se — filed a sworn Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg, Case No. 2025-CP-10-02671, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit. The motion asks the court to immediately restrain Plaintiff ADW and its counsel, Patrick Bryant, and Berg's attorneys at Mullaney Law from accessing, using, or further disclosing what Mace characterizes as her privileged materials. Because the motion carries a signed Verification section, Mace's factual statements are made under oath. The complete nine-page filing — as filed with the Clerk of Court — is reproduced below; the original PDF is available here.
The motion, as filed
Page 1 of 9 — the Motion and Order Information Form (cover sheet), naming Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg, Case No. 2025-CP-10-02671, filed January 27, 2026.
Page 2 of 9 — the motion opens with the case caption (Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg), the title "Motion for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order," Mace's identification as Proposed Intervenor, and the beginning of the Factual Background.
Page 3 of 9 — Factual Background: "Rep. Mace is a sitting Member of the United States House of Representatives and a candidate for Governor of South Carolina." The section lists the categories of disputed materials.
Page 6 of 9 — the "only barrier" passage: "This Court now stands as the only barrier between a victim's most private materials and their continued misuse by the very individuals who violated her trust. If privilege means anything, it must mean something here."
Page 9 of 9 — the signature page, dated January 27, 2026, "Respectfully submitted, REPRESENTATIVE NANCY R. MACE, Member of Congress, Pro Se."
What the filing says
The filing's closing argument puts the stakes in the starkest possible terms. In her verified motion, Mace states:
"This Court now stands as the only barrier between a victim's most private materials and their continued misuse by the very individuals who violated her trust. If privilege means anything, it must mean something here."
The motion's Factual Background section identifies Mace by her public roles — and introduces her gubernatorial campaign into the official court record. As stated in the verified filing:
"Rep. Mace is a sitting Member of the United States House of Representatives and a candidate for Governor of South Carolina."
What is most important here: This is not a press release or a political statement — it is a verified court filing, signed under oath. By attaching a Verification section and swearing to the truth of the factual allegations, Mace elevated her claims from advocacy to sworn testimony. At the same time, the relief she seeks is a gag on opposing lawyers: the motion asks the court to restrain not just parties but counsel — ADW's attorney Rene Stuhr Dukes, Berg's attorney Marybeth Mullaney, and Saxton & Stump — from any further use or disclosure of the contested materials. Separately, the motion expressly places her candidacy for Governor of South Carolina on the public docket, making it part of the case's official record.
The motion identifies the disputed materials as including, among other things, what Mace describes as nonconsensual photographs or video, private video diaries, confidential medical information related to a PTSD diagnosis, and communications with other individuals. It argues that attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and a common-interest privilege all protect these materials from ADW's civil discovery demands. The motion further contends that attorney Marybeth Mullaney "improperly obtained these materials and has already disclosed some of them to adverse parties, including to Mr. Bryant."
Nancy Mace's sworn assertions, as quoted above, are allegations she made under oath in a public court filing; they are her own characterizations of disputed facts. All underlying allegations — including those made by Mace about Patrick Bryant and others, and those made by Bryant and others about Mace — are unproven, contested, and the subject of ongoing civil litigation and a South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigation. No court has made findings of fact on any of the disputed matters. Named parties, including Patrick Bryant, deny Mace's allegations; Mace denies Bryant's. Nothing in this dispatch is a finding of fact or an expression of opinion on the merits of any claim. See People in the Public Record for additional context.
Sources & related coverage:
- The filing itself: Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (PDF, 9 pages) — Proposed Intervenor Nancy R. Mace's verified motion, 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 · DispatchMace 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.
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.