Markets 
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A South Carolina judge found Alex Murdaugh crime reporter and podcaster Mandy Matney in civil contempt and ordered her to pay $171,500 in attorneys’ fees and costs, plus a $5,000 fine, after concluding she willfully refused to comply with a subpoena in litigation tied to the Murdaugh family.
In a 22-page order filed Monday, Circuit Judge R. Keith Kelly concluded Matney deliberately disregarded a valid subpoena and prior court order requiring her to appear for a deposition, rejecting her claim that safety concerns justified her refusal.
The contempt finding stems from long-running civil litigation arising from the 2019 boat crash that killed Mallory Beach. Parker’s convenience stores are among the defendants accused of selling alcohol to underage Paul Murdaugh before the fatal crash, and Matney was subpoenaed as a non-party witness.
MURDAUGH MURDER RETRIAL COULD CRACK OPEN SEALED COURT RECORDS TIED TO INFAMOUS ‘EGG JUROR’
Beach, 19, was killed in the February 2019 crash in Beaufort County. Paul Murdaugh was later charged with boating under the influence, but those charges were dismissed after he and his mother, Maggie Murdaugh, were fatally shot at the family’s Colleton County hunting estate in June 2021.
The Beach family’s civil lawsuit against members of the Murdaugh family and Parker’s alleges the convenience store chain illegally sold alcohol to the underage Paul Murdaugh before the crash. The litigation ultimately helped expose Alex Murdaugh’s finances as investigators uncovered the disgraced attorney’s financial crimes.
Kelly wrote that Matney refused to appear at the Bluffton deposition site on March 27 despite acknowledging she understood the court had denied her efforts to quash the subpoena and ordered the deposition to proceed. Instead, she remained at another law office in Bluffton while Parker’s attorneys waited at the noticed location.
The order notes Matney instead appeared by Zoom from another law office in Bluffton.
MURDAUGH ‘EGG JUROR’ FIGHTS TO CRACK OPEN JURY TAMPERING INVESTIGATION WITH RECORDS IN COURT CLERK SCANDAL
“Based upon the foregoing, there is clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Matney’s failure to appear was not the result of confusion, mistake, or inability, but rather was a deliberate decision to disregard the subpoena and the Court’s March 16, 2026 Order requiring that she be deposed within 14 days,” Kelly wrote.
Kelly also found Matney’s explanation that she feared for her safety was not credible, writing there was “no persuasive evidence” supporting her allegations that Parker’s attorneys were trying to harass her or place her in danger.
ALEX MURDAUGH RETRIAL COULD BRING POTENTIAL DEATH PENALTY AS AG SAYS ‘ALL OUR LEGAL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE’
Kelly pointed to Matney’s social media posts after the aborted deposition, including photos showing her eating lemon pound cake with attorney Mark Tinsley and later dining in Savannah. The judge wrote the posts “evidence her intent to defy her obligation to appear at the noticed deposition location.”
Parker’s attorneys originally sought more than $310,000 in fees and costs, but Kelly reduced the award by nearly 45%, ordering Matney to pay $171,500, plus a $5,000 fine.
The court awarded $39,900 to Bannister, Wyatt and Stalvey, LLC; $45,950 to Deborah B. Barbier, LLC; and $85,650 to Maynard Nexsen, PC.
Matney criticized the ruling Monday in a Facebook post.
“I’m not angry that Judge R Keith Kelly found me in contempt of court. I’m angry that he’s ordering me to pay an unprecedented amount of legal fees ($171,000 + $5,000 in fines),” she wrote.
“The South Carolina Justice system is exactly what I’ve been saying all along — CORRUPT,” she added. “And this is my punishment for calling it like it is.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Kelly wrote there was “no persuasive evidence” supporting Matney’s repeated allegations that Parker’s attorneys were using the deposition process to harass or bully her.
He also concluded the contempt proceedings resulted from Matney’s own conduct, writing that had she appeared for her deposition or accepted one of several alternate locations offered, “she would not be before the Court on a contempt motion.”
Read the full article here
