which states that: An attorney at law is absolutely privileged to publish defamatory matter concerning another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceed ing, or in the institution of, or during the course and as part of, a judicial proceeding in which he participates as counsel, if it has some relation to the proceeding. Since the rules of absolute privilege to publish defamatory materials apply to the publication of any matter that is an invasion of privacy, Rohda’s tenth claim for relief is dismissed. Moreover, at least with respect to a claim based on Section 652D, publicity given to private life, the matters disclosed were of legitimate public concern as a matter of law. See, e.g., Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 43 L.Ed.2d 329 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Defendant Peterson’s Motion for Summary
holding unconstitutional a state decision awarding damages against a broadcasting company for invasion of privacy by disclosing the name of a rape victim in violation of a state statute which prohibited such disclosures holding that  14 prohibits the awarding of costs against the state as a defendant holding that a claim for civil damages based on alleged violation of criminal statute under which criminal penalties result was properly dismissed because criminal violations are brought not in the name of the individual party but rather by and on behalf of the state of ohio or its subdivisions recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state