Opinion ID: 2637103
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Olivit Failed To Preserve His Claim for False Light Invasion of Privacy.

Text: The article stated that [d]ocuments show the family settled [a 2002 lawsuit] for $25,000. In his initial verified complaint Olivit asserted that [t]he Olivit family did not receive $25,000 for all lawsuits filed. Later, in his unsworn response to the Empire's motion for summary judgment, Olivit stated that Carroll violate[d] the rights of privacy afforded to the Olivit family when he printed, disclosed, and divulged privileged information regarding financial settlements gained on behalf of Mr. Olivit's children. In his brief to this court, Olivit states that [r]epresentatives of the City promised explicit confidentiality in the settlement of previous lawsuits regarding monies received on behalf of our children.  (Emphasis in original.) In arguing that representatives of the city broke their promise and they broke a contractual agreement, Olivit implies that Hartle was the source of the information. The article does not attribute the statement to Hartle, but rather to court documents. But assuming Olivit is correct that Hartle divulged the details of the lawsuit, Olivit has produced no evidence that the settlement was private or that the CBJ or Hartle owed any duty to keep it confidential. Additionally, Olivit's brief does not refer to the right to privacy, aside from a passing reference in a confusing list of issues that includes defamation of character with actual malice, invasion of privacy (false light) with actual negligence, discrimination, civil rights violation of First Amendment and liable per se, IIED, and economic loss. Even considering the leniency that we grant to pro se litigants, [29] Olivit's passing reference to privacy in his brief does not preserve any claim of invasion of privacy or false light invasion of privacy. [30]