Court 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 signed a three-page Order Appointing a Third-Party Neutral in Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg, Case No. 2025-CP-10-2671, one of the cluster of related Charleston County cases tied to Rep. Nancy Mace and her former fiance, Patrick Bryant. The order names a referee for a fight that has run through this litigation for months: who controls the more than 11,000 electronic files in a Google Drive that Mace shared with opposing counsel in 2025, and that both Mace and Bryant now say belongs to them. The full order is reproduced below, and the original PDF is available here.

The order, as filed

Page 1 of 3. The case caption and the court's framing of the dispute: Mace "moved to intervene in this case based upon numerous electronic files she claims to have provided to Marybeth Mullaney," and "Patrick Bryant, now or formerly with the Plaintiff, likewise claims ownership of these files." The page closes: "The attorneys have indicated that 11,000+ files are in dispute." Electronic filing stamp on the right margin.

Page 2 of 3. The operative order: "Kristi Harrington, a very capable attorney in Charleston and former Circuit Court Judge, has agreed to serve," appointed third-party neutral; fees split one-half Mace/Berg and one-half ADW/Bryant; the court's caution that the volume "may turn out to be very cost-prohibitive." Signed by Judge Donald B. Hocker, Laurens, SC, June 16, 2026.

Page 3 of 3. The listing of counsel: Cordes Ford and Bill Hunter for Nancy Mace; Marybeth Mullaney for Alexis Berg; Rene Dukes for ADW; Matt Gallo, Nosizi Ralephata, and Will Blount for Patrick Bryant.

What the order says

The order opens by laying out the standoff in the court's own words. The dispute is over a set of electronic files, and there are two people claiming to own them:

"Nancy Mace moved to intervene in this case based upon numerous electronic files she claims to have provided to Marybeth Mullaney, counsel for the Defendant, and now she wants them returned. (Note: Some files have been produced and have not been returned). She claims ownership of these files. To the contrary, Patrick Bryant, now or formerly with the Plaintiff, likewise claims ownership of these files and wants them returned."

Mace's attorneys argued that a neutral might not be necessary at all, depending on how the court rules on the pending dispositive motions. The court was not persuaded:

"Attorneys for Ms. Mace claim that if the Court grants Plaintiff's pending Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings then a Third-Party Neutral would not be needed. Counsel for the Defendant agrees. On the other hand, counsel for the Plaintiff and counsel for Patrick Bryant agree otherwise. The Court tends to agree that since the dispute will still exist, regardless how the Court rules on the aforesaid Motions, that a Third-Party Neutral is still needed."

Then the line that captures the scale of the job:

"The attorneys have indicated that 11,000+ files are in dispute."

To handle that volume, the court turned to a former judge:

"Kristi Harrington, a very capable attorney in Charleston and former Circuit Court Judge, has agreed to serve."

The operative terms followed. Harrington is appointed neutral; the cost is split down the middle; and final allocation is left for the end of the case:

"1. That Kristi Harrington is appointed Third-Party Neutral in this matter;

That Mace/Berg shall be responsible for one-half of the Third-Party Neutral's fees and ADW/Bryant the other one-half. Final allocation can be made at the conclusion of this matter."

The court added a candid note about the practicalities, that the volume of files could make a full neutral review prohibitively expensive, and that another approach might ultimately be needed:

"There is concern on the part of the Court that, due to the voluminous number of files involved, it may turn out to be very cost-prohibitive to the parties for a Third-Party Neutral to be involved and therefore another resolution may need to be put in place. Therefore, what the Court wants is for the attorneys to sit down with Ms. Harrington for an initial review and assessment of this matter to see what needs to be accomplished and potentially what the cost may be for her work. After that, the Court requests Ms. Harrington to report back to the Court and counsel."

The neutral: former Circuit Judge Kristi Harrington

The person the court chose to break the deadlock is Kristi Harrington, described in the order itself as "a very capable attorney in Charleston and former Circuit Court Judge." Harrington was elected to the South Carolina Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit (Charleston and Berkeley counties) by the General Assembly in 2008, and served on the bench through June 2018, presiding over more than 250 jury trials. Since leaving the bench she has worked as a neutral: she is a South Carolina Supreme Court certified mediator and arbitrator, sits on the American Arbitration Association's judicial panel, and runs Harrington Dispute Resolution in North Charleston. A fuller profile is at her People page.

How the dispute reached a neutral

The appointment is the second step of a two-part ruling. A week earlier, on June 9, 2026, Judge Hocker entered a companion Order Regarding Third-Party Neutral that set up the procedure and resolved a stack of Mace's motions. That order recounts that it was deciding three motions filed by "Proposed Intervenor Nancy Mace," her "Emergency Motion to Intervene, Dismiss, and for Sanctions," her "Motion to Stay," and her "Emergency Motion for Restraining Order," all filed January 27, 2026 and heard on May 14, 2026. It identifies the heart of the fight plainly:

"The primary subject of the motions and this order is the proper disposition of materials stored in Mace's Google Drive, access to which is currently possessed by Ms. Mullaney."

The June 9 order set the ground rules a neutral would work under. Materials already produced stay in the record, with no claw-back, and the unproduced materials go to the neutral for a confidential, discovery-only review:

"All materials from Mace's Google Drive that have not yet been produced in either case and which have been produced in either case shall be provided to a third-party neutral to evaluate the documents for discovery purposes. The third-party neutral shall treat all documents or items received as confidential and will sign a sworn declaration confirming such obligation. The Court recognizes that Mace objects to this procedure."

Whatever the neutral flags goes to the lawyers under the most restrictive label in discovery, with a window to fight it:

"the third-party neutral shall provide a list of the documents he or she believes warrant inclusion in discovery. A copy of those items shall be produced to the attorneys in this matter as Attorney's Eyes Only. Following the production to the attorneys, each party shall have thirty days to object to the disclosure of any document listed by the neutral. Any such motion objecting to inclusion shall be filed under seal."

Critically, the June 9 order decided none of the merits. It made no finding on privilege or admissibility, no finding on the propriety of prior productions, and, on the central question of who owns the trove, it expressly held back:

"Nothing in this Order shall be construed as a determination at this time as to ownership of the 11,000+ files in Mace's Google Drive, as both Mace and Bryant claim ownership."

The order also recorded that it was entered without the parties' agreement: "No Consent. This is not a Consent Order."

Page 1 of the June 9, 2026 companion order. It resolves Mace's three January 27, 2026 motions, heard May 14, 2026, and frames "the proper disposition of materials stored in Mace's Google Drive."

Page 2. The procedure: the neutral reviews unproduced materials confidentially, lists what warrants inclusion as Attorney's Eyes Only, and the parties get thirty days to object under seal. "The Court recognizes that Mace objects to this procedure."

Page 3. The court reserves every merits question, privilege, admissibility, prior productions, and ownership of "the 11,000+ files," and notes the order is entered without consent. Signed by Judge Donald Hocker.

Why it matters

ADW v. Berg is a civil case brought by Bryant's company, Assignment Desk Works, against Alexis Berg, a former employee, over an alleged breach of a non-disparagement clause. The Google Drive at the center of the discovery fight is the same trove that surfaced in Berg's separate suit, Berg v. Bryant (originally captioned Jane Doe v. Patrick Bryant, No. 2025-CP-10-03124, now in federal court on a pending motion to remand). According to an earlier defense motion, Mace voluntarily shared the Drive with Berg's counsel in June 2025 as material she believed would be "helpful," then later demanded its return; Mace's position in subsequent filings is that the materials are privileged and were shared under a mutual understanding of confidentiality. The two orders do not resolve any of that. They simply route the unproduced files to a neutral former judge for a confidential look, keep everything she touches under wraps, and leave ownership, privilege, and admissibility for another day. Both the appointing order and the procedure order were entered over Mace's stated objection, and the appointing order is "not a Consent Order."

The underlying allegations across this cluster of cases, the disparagement claim in ADW v. Berg, Berg's suit against Bryant and others, Bryant's counterclaims against Berg and his third-party claims against Mace, and a separate South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigation, are contested, unproven, and have not been adjudicated. The orders described here make no finding of fact and no ruling on privilege, admissibility, ownership, or wrongdoing. Mace denies Bryant's claims; Bryant and the other named parties deny Mace's allegations. Nothing here reflects the merits of any pending matter. For background on the individuals named, see People in the Public Record.

Sources & related coverage:

The order itself: Order Appointing a Third-Party Neutral (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, signed and electronically filed June 16, 2026.
The companion order: Order Regarding Third-Party Neutral (PDF, 3 pages), same case, signed and electronically filed June 9, 2026, resolving Mace's January 27, 2026 motions and setting the neutral-review procedure.
The state docket is verifiable on the SC Judicial Branch Public Index (Charleston County) under Case No. 2025-CP-10-2671.
The neutral: Kristi Harrington, former South Carolina Circuit Court judge (Ballotpedia; Harrington Dispute Resolution).
The presiding judge: Judge Donald B. Hocker.
Related: Mace voluntarily shared her Google Drive, then clawed it back and Mace calls ADW's suit a "fishing expedition" and moves to dismiss it.
Case background: The Litigation.