would be “ ‘highly offensive’ ” to a reasonable person and that is not of legitimate public concern. Id. at 692 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D). As explained in Doe, under the Restatement view adopted by most courts, a communication to a single person or to a small group of persons is not actionable because the publicity element requires communication to the public at large or to so many persons that the matter is “ ‘substantially certain to become one of public knowledge.’ ” Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. a). Here, J.H. alleges that St. Vincent communicated information about his admission to the Stress Center to a single person, so it is not actionable. See id.; see also Dietz v. Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp., 754 N.E.2d 958, 966 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, in support of summary judgment, St.
holding statement that plaintiff was antisemitic not actionable holding that an actionable  20a claim must be preceded by an actionable primary violation under  10b holding that two robberies of different people at the same time are two separate offenses calling for two judgments and two sentences when the defendants were convicted of taking a grandfathers wallet pistol and car and taking a grandsons fishing equipment holding communication to two people not actionable holding that claim for sons suicide was not actionable