An Independent Public RecordWednesday, June 17, 2026

MACEOPEDIA

The Public Record

← Back to Dispatches

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 · Litigation Overview & Court-Filing Index

Dispatch

Exhibit F: The Britton Texts Bryant Says Show No Evidence Was Ever Delivered

Attached to Bryant's December 22, 2025 public opposition to a confidentiality order in Berg v. Bryant, Exhibit F is a set of text messages between Melissa Britton and Alexis Berg spanning March through May 2025. Bryant contends the messages show that Britton refused to provide Berg with any promised evidence of the alleged assault. Berg and Britton deny wrongdoing; Berg's counsel has called any suggestion of improper coordination baseless. The exhibit pages carry a CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by Berg's counsel, and the confidentiality dispute is itself before the court.

Exhibit F text messages between Melissa Britton and Alexis Berg, page PLTF_000177, bearing a CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by plaintiff's counsel
Photo: Public court record, Berg v. Bryant (2025-CP-10-03124). Source

On December 22, 2025, attorneys for Patrick Bryant filed a public opposition to the plaintiff's motion for a confidentiality order in Berg v. Bryant, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124, in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas. Attached to that brief as Exhibit F is a set of text messages between Melissa Britton and Alexis Berg (the plaintiff, who proceeds in public filings as Jane Doe / "Ali Berg") covering exchanges from March through May 2025.

The pages bear a CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by Berg's counsel, Marybeth Mullaney, with Bates numbers PLTF_000176 through PLTF_000179. The fact that Bryant's counsel attached them to a public court filing is itself part of the dispute: Bryant's brief argues the documents are not properly confidential; Berg's motion argues they are. That dispute is currently before Judge Donald B. Hocker.

What Bryant contends the exhibit shows

In his brief, Bryant characterizes Exhibit F as evidence of a coordination problem on the opposing side. His filing states directly that the communications "highlight Britton's refusal to provide Berg with any of her alleged evidence of the assault. Why? Because it does not exist."

Bryant's position is that Britton, despite promising Berg that evidence of the alleged assault existed, declined to produce it to her. He further contends the messages show the parties coordinating on preparing a civil suit against him, not sharing contemporaneous evidence of the events Berg alleges.

The messages visible in the exhibit show Berg telling Britton she had retained an attorney named "Marybeth" and that she and "Nancy" were "preparing a civil suit." In a later exchange, Berg references her inability to access her own "file/screenshots/diary entry" and states a preference to keep communications in "official legal channels" so as not to "weaken our case." In a further message, Berg asks Britton to send "the diary entry," noting that "due to the nda I was only able to hear it read to me one time."

Bryant's brief uses those details to argue that what the messages actually document is a coordination effort to build a lawsuit, not the transmission of independent evidence.

Denials

Berg and Britton deny any wrongdoing. Berg's counsel, Marybeth Mullaney, has called any suggestion of improper coordination "baseless." The confidentiality designation applied to these pages reflects counsel's position that the communications were not meant to be public. The underlying allegations in Berg v. Bryant are disputed in their entirety; Bryant denies all of Berg's claims; all assertions remain unproven and no factual findings have been made.

The exhibit pages, as filed

The four pages of Exhibit F are reproduced below as filed in Bryant's public opposition. Each page bears the CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by plaintiff's counsel and the corresponding Bates stamp. They were attached by Bryant to support his argument that the confidentiality designation was improper.

Exhibit F, page PLTF_000176: text messages between Melissa Britton and Alexis Berg, March 13 through 14, 2025, designated CONFIDENTIAL by plaintiff's counsel and filed as part of Bryant's December 22, 2025 public opposition to the confidentiality order in Berg v. Bryant Exhibit F, p. 1 of 4 (Bates PLTF_000176). Text messages, March 13 through 14, 2025. CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by plaintiff's counsel; pages filed as part of Bryant's public opposition, Dec. 22, 2025.

Exhibit F, page PLTF_000177: text messages between Melissa Britton and Alexis Berg, May 14, 2025, designated CONFIDENTIAL by plaintiff's counsel Exhibit F, p. 2 of 4 (Bates PLTF_000177). Text messages, May 14, 2025. CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by plaintiff's counsel.

Exhibit F, page PLTF_000178: text messages between Melissa Britton and Alexis Berg, May 17, 2025, designated CONFIDENTIAL by plaintiff's counsel Exhibit F, p. 3 of 4 (Bates PLTF_000178). Text messages, May 17, 2025. CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by plaintiff's counsel.

Exhibit F, page PLTF_000179: text messages between Melissa Britton and Alexis Berg, undated, designated CONFIDENTIAL by plaintiff's counsel Exhibit F, p. 4 of 4 (Bates PLTF_000179). Text messages, undated. CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by plaintiff's counsel.

The underlying dispute is the subject of ongoing civil litigation in Berg v. Bryant (Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124) and related actions. All allegations remain unproven and contested. Bryant denies Berg's claims; Berg and Britton deny Bryant's characterizations of the exhibit; no underlying matter has been adjudicated. Nothing here is a finding of fact. For background on the parties see People in the Public Record.

Sources & related coverage:

Exhibit F: The Britton Texts Bryant Says Show No Evidence Was Ever Delivered: image 1