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 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.
Berg's attorney Marybeth Mullaney filed an emergency motion on January 26, 2026 in Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg, a Charleston County Court of Common Pleas case in which the Congresswoman's former fiancé's company sued Berg for disparagement, that described a sharp about-face: Mace had voluntarily handed over her own Google Drive calling it "helpful," then pivoted to threatening legal action to get it back. The filed motion is reproduced in full below; the original PDF is available here.
The motion, as filed
Page 1 of 3, Case caption and opening paragraph. Electronic filing stamp visible on right margin: "ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2026 Jan 26 5:07 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP1002671".
Page 2 of 3, Background section. Mullaney sets out that Mace shared the Drive "stating she believed it contained evidence that would be 'helpful'" and later demanded Berg's counsel "(a) cease using evidence for Ms. Berg's defense; (b) return or destroy evidence … and (c) 'claw back' evidence already produced in discovery."
Page 3 of 3, Conclusion, Wherefore clause, and signature of Marybeth Mullaney, Mullaney Law, North Charleston, SC, January 26, 2026.
What the filing says
The motion's core allegation, in Mullaney's words:
"In emails on June 6, 2025, and June 15, 2025, Congresswoman Nancy Mace voluntarily provided her Google Drive to Ms. Berg's counsel and to Ms. Berg stating she believed it contained evidence that would be 'helpful' to Ms. Berg in this litigation."
The motion continues that Mace attached no strings when she shared it:
"Congresswoman Mace placed no restrictions on use of the materials, did not assert any privilege, and did not limit the scope of materials that could be accessed when sharing the folder."
After Berg's counsel produced materials from the Drive in response to discovery requests under a court-ordered confidentiality order, Mace's position shifted entirely. Mullaney wrote:
"Mace has demanded in a series of threatening emails and letters that Ms. Berg's Counsel: (a) cease using evidence for Ms. Berg's defense; (b) return or destroy evidence relevant to Ms. Berg's claims and defenses; and (c) 'claw back' evidence already produced in discovery."
The motion explains why the about-face matters to Berg: according to the motion, the ADW v. Berg case centers on a disparagement claim, that Berg allegedly told a former co-worker she was a cooperating witness in a SLED investigation into alleged non-consensual recordings. Because truth is an absolute defense to disparagement, Mullaney argued that evidence bearing on whether such recordings existed is "essential to Ms. Berg's defense." Returning or destroying it, the motion said, "would impair her ability to defend herself against the disparagement claims."
The motion does not describe the contents of the Drive, those exhibits were provided to the court for in camera review only, and the privilege questions around them remain unresolved. Mace's position, set out in later filings in the same case, is that the materials are protected by attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, and other privilege designations, and that the sharing was subject to a mutual understanding of confidentiality. Mace has stated she turned the materials over believing Mullaney might represent her and has categorically denied that the share was unrestricted or intended as litigation support for Berg. The underlying allegations in this cluster of cases, including the disparagement claim, Berg's separate lawsuit against Bryant and others, Bryant's counter-defamation suit against Berg and Mace, and the SLED investigation, are unproven, contested, and none has been adjudicated.
All allegations in this dispatch are drawn from the public court record. The claims described are contested, unproven, and subject to ongoing litigation and a South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigation. The parties named, including Patrick Bryant, Ali Berg, and Congresswoman Mace, deny the material allegations made against them respectively, and no court has made findings of fact on the underlying events. See People in the Public Record for context on the individuals named.
Sources & related coverage:
- The filing itself: Defendant's Emergency Motion for Judicial Determination Regarding Use of Evidence (PDF, 3 pages), Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 2025-CP-10-2671, filed January 26, 2026.
- 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
