|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
A sprawling civil dispute tied to South Carolina congresswoman and 2026 gubernatorial candidate Nancy Mace lurched into a new phase this week as a judge took direct control over disputed evidence — and as dueling “emergency” motions laid bare a bitter fight over who will be permitted to use materials Mace herself once shared.
The rapid-fire filings reflect a case that has drifted far from its original allegations and descended into a procedural free-for-all – one involving privilege claims, discovery warfare, and competing accusations of litigation abuse.
On Friday, retired S.C. circuit court judge Donald B. Hocker ordered (.pdf) that subpoenaed materials held by three former attorneys for plaintiff Alexis “Ali” Berg be turned over to the court for review.
The order required the attorneys to produce all responsive materials within 14 days – and makes clear that non-disclosure agreements do not excuse compliance with subpoenas. Judge Hocker also expressly shielded prior counsel from liability arising out of confidentiality provisions.
By directing that the evidence be reviewed privately by the court — rather than by the parties — Hocker removed privilege determinations from the litigants and placed them squarely under his control.
The ruling landed one day after Mace – who is representing herself – submitted a letter (.pdf) accusing Berg’s attorney, Marybeth Mullaney, of improperly disclosing allegedly privileged communications — a filing the court effectively sidestepped by seizing the evidence itself.
***
ORIGINS OF THE DISPUTE
The litigation dates back to May 2025, when Berg filed a civil lawsuit alleging she was drugged, sexually assaulted, and secretly recorded during a 2018 incident involving Mace’s former fiancée, Charleston entrepreneur Patrick Bryant, and Sullivans Island businessman Eric Bowman, among others.
Those allegations closely mirrored claims Mace previously propelled into the national spotlight months earlier via her viral “scorched earth” speech on the floor of the U.S. House. In that address, Mace said she had “accidentally” discovered photos and video of a rape on Bryant’s phone and personally informed the victim she had been assaulted while incapacitated.
Mace’s speech helped catalyze federal legislation – and triggered a criminal investigation by the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED), which remains “active and ongoing.”
As the civil case unfolded, however, key evidentiary gaps emerged. Berg later testified under oath that she had never seen the alleged assault video, does not possess it, and only learned of the alleged assault secondhand. Her attorney acknowledged no such video was in the plaintiff’s custody or control — a gap that has fueled repeated demands by Bryant for in-camera review of any materials Mace claims to possess.
Concerned that escalating public rhetoric threatened the fairness of the proceedings, the S.C. Supreme Court appointed judge Hocker to oversee a consolidated docket and imposed a broad gag order barring all parties — including Mace — from publicly discussing the case.
***
RELATED | NANCY MACE: ‘I WILL NOT BE SILENCED’
***
BERG SEEKS EMERGENCY RULING
On Monday (January 26, 2026), Berg filed an emergency motion (.pdf) asking the court to rule quickly on whether she may use materials that Mace voluntarily shared with her and her attorneys months earlier.
According to the filing, Mace provided Berg access to a shared digital folder in June 2025, describing the contents as evidence that would be “helpful.” Berg argues the materials were provided without restriction, privilege designation, or limitation on use, and that truth is an absolute defense to a related disparagement lawsuit filed against her.
The motion asks judge Hocker to conduct an in-camera review and clarify whether Mace may now retroactively claw back materials she once freely disclosed — a question Berg says is crippling her ability to defend herself.
***
***
MACE FILES EMERGENCY MOTION TO INTERVENE
One day later, on Tuesday, January 27, Mace filed her own 82-page pro se emergency motion seeking to intervene in the disparagement lawsuit — despite not being a named party. In her motion (.pdf), she asked the court to dismiss claims, impose sanctions, and order the return or destruction of materials she now asserts are privileged.
Mace’s filing accuses Assignment Desk Works LLC, Berg, and Berg’s counsel of using litigation as a discovery weapon to obtain evidence Bryant could not access directly. She alleges violations of attorney-client privilege, work product, common-interest privilege, and law-enforcement investigatory protections, and seeks Rule 11 sanctions against multiple attorneys.
The motion also asks the court to prohibit any further use or disclosure of the materials Mace previously shared — placing her squarely at odds with Berg’s emergency request.
***
PARALLEL TRACKS, RISING STAKES
The dueling motions leave the court to resolve a fundamental question: can a party retroactively declare privilege over materials she voluntarily distributed — or are those materials now fair game in litigation?
They also underscore a broader dynamic at play. While judge Hocker has moved to consolidate authority over evidence and discovery, Mace has continued to escalate procedurally — filing pro se letters, emergency motions, and removal notices, while publicly framing judicial enforcement as political persecution.
No rulings have yet been issued on either emergency motion.
For now, the docket tells a clear story: a case that began as a civil lawsuit has become a test of judicial control, litigation boundaries, and the risks of turning private evidence into public ammunition — with consequences still unfolding.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
2 comments
So it looks like Mace has potentially damaging evidence against herself on her phone. This could get interesting
This is very interesting. After reading some Epstein files which she is mentioned in, there are also some details about being given drugs so you don’t remember anything. This must all be linked.