committed acts constituting a violation of his privacy rights. As discussed above, Plaintiff has not so shown. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Count VI is granted. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, no triable issue of fact exists and Defendant is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . Whether a plaintiff can bring a cause of action for "false light” publicity in Ohio is a matter of some uncertainty. In M.J. DiCorpo, Inc. v. Sweeney, 69 Ohio St.3d 497, 634 N.E.2d 203 (1994), the Ohio Supreme Court expressly declined either to adopt or reject such a cause of action. Appellate Courts in Ohio are split on the issue. Compare Piro and Killilea (<HOLDING>) with Bertsch v. Communications Workers of Am.
recognizing cause of action for wrongful death holding that dismissal is proper for a derivative cause of action but not for a direct cause of action recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge recognizing the cause of action recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium