The district court concluded that appellant harassed respondent by mailing the documents to respondent's family and business contacts. The record does not support the district court's conclusion that appellant's mailings adversely affected respondent's safety, security, or privacy. Appellant sent only accurate copies of public records that he acquired through legitimate means. Although this may have embarrassed respondent, disseminating accurate copies of public records does not constitute harassment sufficient to justify a restraining order. Respondent had no legitimate expectation of privacy in those documents.
Appellate review is limited to the record.
Fredrich v. Independent Sch. Appellant has moved to strike a portion of the statement of facts from respondent's appellate brief. We agree that respondent's brief contains information from outside the record and fails to refer to the record for support. See Minn. R. Civ. If material evidence was omitted from the record, or if evidence was misstated by appellant, respondent should have moved the district court for correction.