This article originally appeared on Julie M. Anderson-Holburn’s Substack, Unveiled and Uncensored
SANTA ANA, Calif., July 7 — Weeks after an Orange County Superior Court commissioner dissolved a temporary restraining order against journalist Nik Richie, a judge in the same courthouse ruled Tuesday that both Evander Kane and his former wife, Anna Kane, must appear in person — not remotely — if they intend to testify at two upcoming hearings in the case.
The case centers on Richie’s First Amendment right to report on matters of public interest, and arises out of a victim’s personal account and an underlying family law dispute between Kane and Anna Kane over custody of their daughter.
Judge Amber L. Poston, presiding over the case in Department C65 at the Central Justice Center, denied a request for remote witness appearances, explaining that credibility in civil harassment proceedings is best evaluated through live testimony. She also denied Richie’s request to require Kane to post an undertaking under Code of Civil Procedure section 1030, finding the required showing had not been made — a ruling that addressed only the bond request, not the merits of either side’s case.
The dispute traces back to a May 21 interview Richie conducted with Anna Kane, published days after Evander Kane posted a lengthy public statement on May 16 accusing his ex-wife of stalking, harassment and a “deliberate campaign of lies” spanning more than five years. Kane cited that interview, along with related social-media commentary, as the basis for the temporary restraining order he sought against Richie on June 8 — the order a commissioner would later dissolve, finding no credible basis for some of Kane’s specific allegations against Richie.
The case now moves toward two key dates. On Aug. 26, the parties are expected to present legal argument — and any testimony they elect to offer — in support of Richie’s pending anti-SLAPP motion. Then, beginning Sept. 8, the court will hold a three-day evidentiary hearing in Department C65 at the Central Justice Center, where Anna Kane is expected to testify and where Evander Kane must appear in person if he intends to testify himself. That hearing is expected to determine whether Kane is entitled to a permanent civil harassment restraining order against journalist Nik Richie.
Richie has also filed a separate federal lawsuit against Kane in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division (Case No. 5:26-cv-06348), seeking a declaration under the federal SPEECH Act that a permanent Canadian court judgment cannot be used to restrain his reporting in the United States.
Responding to a request for comment, Marc Randazza, Richie’s attorney, was blunt about today’s undertaking ruling.
“The judge got it wrong, but this is not an appealable order,” he said. “So we accept it and move on.”
On the Sept. 8 evidentiary hearing, Randazza predicted it will never happen. He said the case will either end at the Aug. 26 anti-SLAPP hearing in Richie’s favor, or, if the motion is denied, his team will immediately appeal — a scenario he called “a mathematical certainty” would derail the September date, despite opposing counsel and the court characterizing that prediction as speculation.
Randazza also argued the case so far has shown “little recognition” of Richie’s First Amendment rights, adding that his team has been preparing for an appeal “from day one” given what he described as the challenge of overcoming a professional athlete represented by a major law firm.
He said he’d prefer an Aug. 26 loss at the trial level, arguing that an appellate ruling would carry broader precedential weight — and noting that as the appellant, his side would get both an opening and reply brief, while Kane would be limited to one.
Kane’s counsel at Blank Rome had not responded to a request for comment as of publication.
The Richie v. Kane case will be heard at Central Justice Center, located at 700 W Civic Center Dr., Santa Ana, CA 92701, Dept. C65 at 8:30 A.M. on August 26, and September 8, 9 & 10.
This article is investigative reporting intended for public-information and public-interest purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and nothing herein should be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a licensed attorney or qualified legal professional. References to laws, court proceedings, or legal processes are presented for journalistic and informational purposes.
Julie M. Anderson-Holburn is a California-based investigative journalist reporting on criminal and family court corruption, judicial abuse, domestic violence, child abuse and systemic failures. Her work is published on NewsBreak, Substack, and The Family Court Circus, and has been featured by the Center for Judicial Excellence and National Safe Parents. Julie believes that exposing the truth is the first step toward meaningful reform.
0 comments