Hampton County, S.C. – True‑crime podcaster Mandy Matney filed a motion this month asking S.C. Circuit Court Judge R. Keith Kelly to vacate or substantially modify a $176,500 contempt sanction imposed after she declined to appear at the designated site for a court‑ordered deposition.

Background of the dispute

Matney is not a party to the underlying wrongful‑death lawsuit that stems from the February 2019 boat crash that killed 19‑year‑old Mallory Beach. The crash, which involved Paul Murdaugh, later became part of a broader spinoff case in Hampton County that seeks financial records from Alex Murdaugh, the disgraced attorney‑father.

During discovery, attorneys for convenience‑store magnate Greg Parker subpoenaed Matney, alleging she possessed information about the alleged disclosure of confidential materials from the Beach litigation. Judge Kelly denied Matney’s motion to quash the subpoena and later denied her request to reconsider that ruling.

Deposition controversy

The deposition was scheduled for March 27, 2026 at a Bluffton law office that had appeared on several subpoenas. Matney did not attend that address. Instead, she went to her own attorney’s office nearby and offered to participate by video. After further negotiations, she completed a seven‑hour deposition at the Spartanburg County courthouse on April 8, 2026.

Judge Kelly concluded that Matney’s failure to appear at the March 27 location was willful and unsupported by a credible excuse. He ordered her to pay $171,500 in attorneys’ fees and costs, plus a separate $5,000 fine, for a total sanction of $176,500.

Matney’s legal challenge

In a lengthy motion filed in early August, Matney’s attorneys argue the contempt order is both legally and constitutionally defective. Their primary contention is that the fee award was based on sealed billing statements that Matney was not permitted to review, preventing her from challenging the reasonableness of the charges.

“A person cannot challenge the reasonableness of a bill she is forbidden to read,” the motion states. The attorneys also assert that the $5,000 fine functions as criminal contempt, which requires higher constitutional protections, including proof beyond a reasonable doubt and protection against excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment.

Matney maintains she had an “adequate excuse” for not appearing at the designated location because of safety concerns involving an online critic, James Seidel. Her motion asks Judge Kelly to vacate the contempt finding and sanctions, or at minimum to provide access to the sealed fee records, allow a hearing on the charges, and consider her ability to pay.

Response from Parker’s counsel

Attorneys for Greg Parker and co‑defendants dispute Matney’s claims. They point to a July 9, 2026 email that transmitted fee affidavits showing rates and hours, and note that the underlying itemized bills were submitted to the court under seal with a confidentiality order that permits Matney’s attorneys to review them upon request. According to Parker’s lawyers, no request was made within the 35‑day window, though they say they remain willing to produce the documents with court approval.

The defense also argues that the judge properly considered Matney’s public commentary when evaluating intent, and that the court did inquire into her ability to pay during the June 22 hearing. They contend the sanction is a lawful civil contempt measure intended to enforce compliance, not a punitive criminal penalty.

What’s at stake

The case raises several broader questions for journalists and private witnesses alike: the extent to which a court can impose hefty fee awards without providing full access to the underlying billing, the distinction between civil and criminal contempt in a deposition context, and the constitutional limits on fines deemed excessive.

Matney’s fundraising effort has raised more than $93,000 from roughly 1,300 donors, according to an exhibit filed by Parker’s attorneys. Her legal team argues that the sanction effectively punishes her for raising safety concerns, while Parker’s counsel maintains the dispute is purely about compliance with a lawful subpoena.

Next steps

The ultimate decision rests with Judge Kelly, who issued the original contempt order last month. Both sides have filed extensive motions, and a hearing on the fee award and the fine may be scheduled in the coming weeks.

Original reporting: FITSNews — read the source article.