Alleged violations of the Open Meetings Act (OMA); Closed session; MCL 15.268(h); Booth Newspapers, Inc v Wyoming City Council; Procedural requirements; Vermilya v Delta Coll Bd of Trs; Herald Co, Inc v Tax Tribunal; Request to amend the complaint to add allegations; Requirements for a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10); MCR 2.116(G)(4); Whether summary disposition was premature; MCR 2.116(H); Civil conspiracy claim; Res judicata

The court held that defendant-township Board did not violate the OMA by exceeding the permissible scope of closed sessions under MCL 15.268(h). Further, the trial court did not err in rejecting plaintiffs’ contentions “that the Board failed to adequately state its reasons for calling for closed sessions under” this provision and “that communications considered during the closed sessions were not the product of an attorney-client relationship.” It also did not err in denying the request to amend the complaint, the Board’s summary disposition motion was not deficient for failing to comply with MCR 2.116(G)(4), and summary disposition was not premature. Absent an underlying OMA violation, the conspiracy claim against the Board’s attorney or the individual Board members failed. Finally, some of plaintiffs’ allegations were barred by res judicata. In these consolidated cases plaintiffs asserted that “the Board violated the OMA when going into closed session on” specified dates, contending that it “improperly relied upon MCL 15.268(h) to meet in closed session with their attorney to discuss matters other than pending litigation.” The court noted that it has interpreted this provision “to encompass an attorney-client exemption under the OMA.” It concluded that there was no evidence “the Board exceeded the scope of the exception in MCL 15.268(h) by considering or discussing matters beyond the legal matters addressed in the privileged written material that was the basis for the closed sessions. After reviewing the minutes of the closed sessions and the written communications, the trial court found that the Board did not exceed the scope of a closed session under MCL 15.268(h), that the minutes of the closed sessions confirmed that the sessions were limited to attorney-client privileged written communications, and plaintiffs did not provide documentation to the contrary.” In addition, the court found that “nothing in the OMA or the FOIA obligated the Board to provide a more detailed explanation of the documents to be considered during the closed sessions.” As a result, the trial court did not err in rejecting one plaintiff’s “arguments that the Board failed to adequately state its reasons for calling for closed sessions under MCL 15.268(h).” Further, evidence supported the existence of an attorney-client relationship. Affirmed.