An Independent Public RecordWednesday, June 17, 2026

MACEOPEDIA

The Public Record

← Back to Dispatches

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

Dispatch

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.

Official portrait of U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace
Photo: U.S. House (public domain). Source

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, SCCA 233 court coversheet, ADW v. Berg, Case No. 2025-CP-10-02671, January 27, 2026 Page 1 of 16, the SCCA 233 Motion and Order Information Form and Coversheet, case number 2025-CP-10-02671.

Page 2 of 16, case caption and opening paragraph: Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg; Mace's Emergency Motion to Intervene, Motion to Dismiss, and for Sanctions; FILED stamp visible 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, the "coordinated scheme" argument linking this action to the GLT2 sanctions order against Barrett Brewer 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, background on Rep. Mace's February 10, 2025 floor speech and the formation of GLT2, LLC 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 intervention standard under S.C. R. Civ. P. 24 and Mace's argument that she satisfies it as a non-party whose communications are the discovery target Page 5 of 16, the Rule 24 intervention analysis: Mace argues her interests are not represented by any existing party.

Page 6 of 16, argument that Rep. Mace's privileges were already violated by Defendant Berg's counsel disclosing materials to Bryant 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, attorney-client privilege argument: Mace's confidential communications were disclosed without her consent 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, the "fishing expedition" argument: Interrogatory No. 12 targeting Osborne and Bowman recordings reveals the suit's improper purpose 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, requests for production targeting Mace's communications with other victims and law enforcement evidence 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, continued privilege argument: the discovery has "no purpose other than to obtain Rep. Mace's privileged communications" 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, the Rule 26 violation argument and the "fishing expedition" passage: "ADW's lawsuit is not a legitimate defamation action, it is a fishing expedition designed to circumvent privilege protections" 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, completion of the "fishing expedition" quote and the sanctions argument 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, the Rule 11 sanctions argument: attorney duties of good faith under SCRCP Page 13 of 16, Mace argues ADW's counsel violated Rule 11's good-faith signing requirement.

Page 14 of 16, sanctions argument against Berg's counsel for improper acquisition and disclosure of privileged materials 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 relief requested: intervention, dismissal, protective order, sanctions, and return of privileged materials 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 block and the certification that consultation "would not be productive" 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:

Mace Calls ADW's Breach-of-Contract Suit a 'Fishing Expedition,' Moves to Dismiss It, Despite Not Being a Party: image 1
Mace Calls ADW's Breach-of-Contract Suit a 'Fishing Expedition,' Moves to Dismiss It, Despite Not Being a Party: image 2