Court Opinion

ID: 9702331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:07:12.020246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:36.665643
License: Public Domain

Wilder, J.,
(concurring.) I join with the majority in finding that the records at issue in this case are exempt from disclosure under MCL 15.243(l)(s)(irr). I write separately to explain why I conclude that the trial court had discretion to consider this ground for dismissal of plaintiff’s action asserted in defendant’s motion for reconsideration, despite defendant’s failure to assert this ground in its motion for summary disposition.
MCR 2.119(F)(3) provides:
(3) Generally, and without restricting the discretion of the court, a motion for rehearing or reconsideration which merely presents the same issues ruled on by the court, *352either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. The moving party must demonstrate a palpable error by which the court was misled and show that a different disposition of the motion must result from correction of the error. [Emphasis added.]
Here, the trial court erred in failing to recognize its discretion to address the ground asserted in defendants’ motion for reconsideration. See Kowalski v Fiutowski, 247 Mich App 156, 165-166; 635 NW2d 502 (2001). The trial court’s failure to recognize its discretion is particularly significant here because the record clearly establishes that all the evidence necessary to support summary disposition in favor of defendants based on the personnel records exemption, MCL 15.243(1) (s)(iir), had been submitted to the trial court as exhibits attached to the motion for summary disposition and were available to the trial court as it conducted its in camera hearing. Thus, while a party may be precluded from submitting new evidence to the trial court in support of a motion for reconsideration, see Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 126, n 9; 597 NW2d 817 (1999); Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 366, n 5; 547 NW2d 314 (1996) (in ruling on a motion for summary disposition, a court considers the evidence then available to it), a party raising a newly asserted basis for dismissal in a motion for reconsideration does not necessarily run afoul of Maiden and Quinto in the appropriate circumstances.