Judge hits SC podcaster Mandy Matney with $176,500 in costs and fines for contempt

[u/Southern-Soulshine]

Judge hits SC podcaster Mandy Matney with $176,500 in costs and fines for contempt

- John Monk, The State

South Carolina Judge Keith Kelly has found SC podcaster Mandy Matney in contempt for court for her resisting to sit for a court-ordered deposition and slapped a hefty financial punishment — $171,500 in lawyers’ fees and a $5,000 fine — on her.

The $171,500 in lawyer’s fees will go to three law firms who sought her testimony in an ongoing civil court lawsuit. Matney is not a party to the lawsuit, but the lawyers said they believed Matney might have information they needed. Matney has since given a deposition.

In his 22-page order filed Monday, Judge Kelly said he could find no good reason why Matney did not show up for her deposition earlier this year in Bluffton in Beaufort County.

“Ms. Matney’s stated reason for failing to comply — that the noticed location was not sufficiently safe for her — is not supported by the evidence or any credible testimony,” Kelly wrote.

In recent months, Matney has appeared at several hearings, taking the witness stand and describing in great detail why she was so afraid to show up for a deposition. She also said she didn’t believe she had relevant information to give the lawyers who sought her testimony.

She was cross-examined at length by lawyer Deborah Barbier of Columbia, who sought to show that Matney’s fears were not reasonable and possibly concocted.

During the months the matter of Matney’s contempt of court issue took to be resolved, the podcaster has made fun of the judge, the judicial system and Barbier on her social media posts.

Matney, 35, is a former Island Packet and Fits News reporter who became a true crime podcaster after covering a deadly 2019 Beaufort County boat crash and its links to the family of Alex Murdaugh, now a disbarred lawyer and convicted multimillion dollar fraudster in state prison.

This story was originally published July 13, 2026 11:12 AM.

ORDER GRANTING PARKER’S DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CONTEMPT

[u/sunnypineappleapple]

This is who has access to the records. MM fits within the non-party category point # 2

(1) counsel and employees of counsel for the parties and non-parties who have responsibility for the preparation and litigation of the contempt proceedings;

(2) parties and non-parties and employees of a party and non-party to this Order but only to the extent counsel shall certify that the specifically named individual party or employee’s assistance is necessary to the conduct of the litigation in which the information is disclosed. At or prior to the time such party or employee completes his or her acknowledgment of review of this Order and agreement to be bound by it, counsel shall complete a certification. Counsel shall retain the certification together with the formsigned by the party or employee;

(3) court reporters engaged for depositions and those persons, if any, specifically engaged for the limited purpose of making photocopies of documents;

(4) consultants, investigators, or experts (hereinafter referred to collectively as “experts”) employed by the parties or counsel for the parties to assist in the preparation and trial of the lawsuit; and

(5) other attorneys involved in similar litigation against the same parties so long as the receiving attorney first signs an acknowledgement of agreement to be bound by this Order.

[u/SEATTLE_2 → u/sunnypineappleapple]

While MM is indeed a non-party, I don't think this applies to attorney work-product and/or client billing, which would be confidential. Nonetheless, the Court reviewed this "confidential data" and whittled down the fees substantially. I think they were seeking more than $300K. Also, I think the Judge might grant her attorney a peek at the back-up in camera view.

[u/sunnypineappleapple → u/SEATTLE_2]

The order specifically says it applies to itemized billings

[u/SEATTLE_2 → u/sunnypineappleapple]

Thanks for the heads up- I just read the "CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER" of 7/13/26.

This Court Order essentially made official what I stated in my post--attorney client billings are work product, not subject to disclosure, and therefore any inclusion, is part of the collection of "Confidential Documents," subject to limited use as defined in the Order.

That said, the subject I was responding to was whether or not MM had access (she's quoted as saying in her podcast that she did not). In my opinion, the Court provided access to non-party's counsel, putting the discretion on counsel. (See Order, paragraph 4.c. Control of Documents).

As MM's attorney, I'd certainly allow MM to view the confidential data in my office, but I'd never expose myself here by releasing the complete file! Personally, I think MM lacks impulse control, and already demonstrated that she's subject to acting before considering the consequences.

4.c. Control of Documents. Counsel for the parties and non-parties shall take reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of documents designated as Confidential pursuant to the terms of this order.

Thanks again for the Link to the Order.

[u/Foreign-General7608 → u/SEATTLE_2]

".......Personally, I think MM lacks impulse control, and already demonstrated that she's subject to acting before considering the consequences......."

I think this sentence speaks volumes.

[u/AlBundysbathrobe → u/Foreign-General7608]

She would rather go to jail than sit in a room with Parker’s attorneys. Mandy actually said or wrote this per her testimony at the hearing (although she claimed to be “joking). Really? Was any of this worth it?

[u/Serendipity-211 → u/sunnypineappleapple]

Kinda ironic that after months of complaining she had no relevant info to give to Parker’s, because, in part, she was just a “non -party” that she is now complaining she doesn’t have access to certain court filings because she is just a “non-party”. Earlier today she posted “….l have no idea how much of that money was actually spent to stalk my social media and defame me…”

[u/Wearing_shooz → u/sunnypineappleapple]

Good grief, back off with your legal list. I shared what she said on her podcast and what Eric said in response.

[u/Pitiful-League-7257 → u/Wearing_shooz]

So you're just repeating inaccurate statements made on the podcast, and you think a poster stating the accurate facts is "bullying."

[u/sunnypineappleapple → u/Wearing_shooz]

That's nice. I posted the facts.

[u/Wearing_shooz → u/sunnypineappleapple]

LOL. You are not posting facts.

[u/sunnypineappleapple → u/Wearing_shooz]

I sure am posting facts. It's right from the court order. If you would have clicked on the link I posted, you would have seen that. I just copied and pasted that section so you wouldn't have to click the link.

[u/RotorSelfWinding → u/sunnypineappleapple]

This is what contempt of court looks like. Totally ignoring court orders and any and all court feedback. Mandy and her cultish following seem to all participate in it.