For All the Accusations, 'Not One Woman Other Than Defendant Has Brought an Action Against Bryant, Including Mace'

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