Evander Kane v Nik Richie

Our client, Nik Richie has been a famous journalist for more than twenty years. Evander Kane is an NHL player who is surrounded by public controversies involving sexual assaults, violence against women, unpaid gambling debts, and fixing NHL games. These public controversies have been widely reported on by the media.  (Exhibits to this document have a sampling) 

Richie sat down with Kane’s ex-wife for a 72 minute interview where she discussed Kane, his behaviors, and allegations against him. Evander did not like this one bit.  Evander has a previous judgment (from a Canadian court) prohibiting his ex-wife from “posting anything to social media about” him and his family.  This judgment also bars Kane’s ex-wife from “disparaging him or his family” on “any form of social media,” and states that it “remains in effect permanently and will not expire.” His ex-wife may not speak about Kane, their family, their court proceedings, or even the Canadian courts. 

That kind of thing would never fly in the United States.  

Kane attempted to enforce this Canadian judgment, against (this will be hard to believe) Mr. Richie.  Richie was not part of the Canadian proceeding, the order did not even mention him, but Kane’s lawyers still thought they could use the Canadian court order to suppress journalism in the United States.  

What is even more unbelievable, Evander succeeded (temporarily) in securing a prior restraint. Orange County entered an order making Richie stop saying anything he heard from Anna Kane.  It did so in part relying on the Canadian judgment.  (Evander’s lawyers snuck into court like little rats and got the injunction in secret without giving Richie an opportunity to respond). 

In arguing for restraining Richie’s speech, Evander’s attorney’s argued the interview should be taken down because Ms. Kane’s interpretation of traumatic events in her life is some how “akin to falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.” The excerpt from the pleading is below:

Once Richie got word of the prior restraint against him, we intervened and got the injunction thrown out.  The order is here, but we maintain that it is still deeply flawed.  However, those arguments are for the next stage in the case.

While the prior restraint was vacated, Evander Kane domesticated another Alberta judgment in Santa Clara County.  They tried to use that in the hearing to keep the injunction in place.  

While Richie has won for now, the case is not over. 

Mr. Kane is still persisting that he can stop Richie from publishing what he wants.  Richie however, filed an Anti-SLAPP against Kane (which remains pending) and is filing a federal claim for violation of the SPEECH Act. 

Documents are available below.  And this page will be updated as the case progresses.

UPDATE:  On August 26, the Court heard oral argument on the Anti-SLAPP motion.  It was clear from the moment the judge took the bench that it was not going to go our way.  The judge appeared to be noticeably angry — at us.  

The first order of business is there was a request by the press to film the proceedings.  The court smacked that down, despite it being a reasonable request.  It was clear at that moment which direction everything else was going to go.  

The Judge had a prepared order that held that the Anti-SLAPP was denied because Richie’s speech was (in her view) not a matter of public concern.  And even if it was, that Kane had “clear and convincing” evidence that Richie’s journalism and advocacy was “harassment” under California law.  

At the hearing, the court asked if we intended to appeal.  Attorney Randazza responded in the affirmative.  Kane’s counsel tried to force us to spend more money that we didn’t have to by trying to force the trial to take place next week by claiming it was “speculative” that we would appeal.  

Randazza said “under penalty of perjury, I swear.  I swear before God almighty, and before all that is good and just in this world, with no opportunity to back out of it, I swear that this will be appealed the moment the order is entered your honor”  (paraphrasing – will update when transcript is available).  

Randazza later said “this decision is so obviously flawed under the First Amendment and California law, that my entire existence as a  First Amendment lawyer would be meaningless if we allowed this to stand.”