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
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.
In a two-page filing submitted to a Charleston court on March 4, 2026, ADW's counsel Rene Stuhr Dukes wrote that "despite the efforts of Defendant and Nancy Mace to accuse Bryant of a multitude of sexual crimes, not one woman other than Defendant as brought an action against Bryant, including Mace." (The word "as" appears in the filed document where "has" would be grammatically expected; quoted verbatim from the filing.) The complete two-page filing is reproduced below, and the original PDF is available here.
The response, as filed
Page 1 of 2 — case caption: Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 2025-CP-10-2671. Electronically filed March 4, 2026 at 4:50 PM. Plaintiff's response arguing that Bryant's relationships with other women are irrelevant to the breach-of-contract claims.
Page 2 of 2 — the key passage: "not one woman other than Defendant as brought an action against Bryant, including Mace." Followed by the prayer for relief and signed by Rene Stuhr Dukes, Esq., Saxton & Stump, LLC, dated March 4, 2026, Charleston, South Carolina.
What the filing says
The line is the document's sharpest point. Mace has publicly accused Patrick Bryant — her former fiancé and the co-founder and managing member of plaintiff ADW — of serious sexual misconduct, accusations Bryant has categorically denied. Berg, the defendant in the underlying breach-of-contract case, made similar allegations. Dukes's filing puts a simple question to the court: if the accusations are as serious as Berg and Mace have represented, why has no woman — Mace included — brought a legal action against Bryant? The filing uses that absence as the basis for arguing that Bryant's relationships with other women are irrelevant to the case before the court.
The context is a dispute over discovery scope. Berg's counsel had sought to introduce evidence involving other women connected to Bryant, framing it as zealous advocacy. Dukes countered that the court had already confined discovery to the events of October 25–26, 2018 — the night at issue in ADW's breach-of-contract and non-disparagement claims — and that pursuing unrelated women exceeded the bounds of that order and of professional conduct.
The most significant fact documented here is a public-record statement by plaintiff's counsel: for all the public accusations directed at Bryant, not one woman has filed suit against him, and Mace — the most prominent accuser — is specifically named as among those who have not done so.
The opposing-party argument quoted above is not a judicial finding or adjudication of any claim. The sexual-misconduct allegations against Patrick Bryant are unproven and contested. Bryant has categorically denied all such accusations. A South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigation remains open. All named parties — Bryant, Ali Berg, and Nancy Mace — are presumed innocent of any uncharged conduct. See People in the Public Record for context on all individuals named in Maceopedia.
Sources & related coverage:
- The filing itself: Plaintiff's Return to Defendant's Emergency Motion for Judicial Determination Regarding Use of Evidence (PDF, 2 pages) — Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 2025-CP-10-2671, electronically filed March 4, 2026 at 4:50 PM.
- The state docket is verifiable on the SC Judicial Branch Public Index (Charleston County) under Case No. 2025-CP-10-2671.
- Case background: The Litigation
Read next
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.
January 26, 2026 · DispatchMace voluntarily shared her Google Drive as 'helpful' evidence, then sent 'threatening' letters demanding it back
In a January 2026 emergency motion, Ali Berg's attorney Marybeth Mullaney told a Charleston court that Congresswoman Nancy Mace had voluntarily handed over her Google Drive in June 2025, saying she believed it would be 'helpful' to Berg's defense, and then reversed course, sending what the motion calls 'threatening emails and letters' demanding Berg's counsel stop using the materials, return or destroy them, and 'claw back' items already produced in discovery. The motion asks the court to step in and decide whether Berg may keep using what Mace herself provided.
- 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.
February 10, 2026 · DispatchBryant's Own Lawyer Alleges Mace 'Stole' His Phone and Hired a PI to Extract Its Data
In a public court filing, Patrick Bryant's attorney asserted in an email exhibit that Nancy Mace took Bryant's Samsung Galaxy S22 from his home and hired a private investigator to copy files off it. The allegations are unproven and contested; Berg's motion argues that Bryant's own pleadings directly contradict the account.
- February 2, 2026 · Dispatch
Opposing Counsel Tells Court Mace's Motion Is 'Intended to Delay This Litigation, Harass Plaintiff, Its Members, and Agents'
In a February 2026 court filing, ADW's counsel Rene Dukes argued that Rep. Nancy Mace had no legal standing to intervene in the ADW v. Berg breach-of-contract case and that her motion was frivolous, filed solely to harass and delay. Dukes also noted that Mace's filing invoked her own congressional floor speech, in which she had named private citizens who are members of the plaintiff.