Write briefly what the case below is about.

$1$ This appeal arises from claims asserted by fifty electrical workers $($Plaintiffs$)$ against Parsons Electric, LLC $($Parsons$),$ P$1$ Group, Inc. $($P$1$ Group$),$ and Whiting$-$Turner Contracting Company $($WT$).$ Plaintiffs brought claims for blacklisting against Parsons, P$1$ Group, and WT$,$ and claims for breach of contract against Parsons and P$1$ Group. The trial court held $(1)$ Parsons and P$1$ Group were in a joint venture and the alleged "blacklist" was therefore not published to a third party, $(2)$ there was no evidence of breach of contract by Parsons or P$1$ Group, and $(3)$ WT had no involvement in creating or disseminating the alleged "blacklist". The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all three defendants. Because there was no dispute of material fact and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.

$2$ Plaintiffs' claims arose from work related to a construction projection in Pryor, Oklahoma $($the Project$).$ On April $1,2014,$ Parsons and P$1$ Group entered into a joint venture agreement $($the Joint Venture$)$ in order to submit a bid for the electrical work for the Project. The general contractor for the Project, WT$,$ awarded the electrical subcontract to the Joint Venture. As agreed, P$1$ Group managed the manpower, while Parsons provided foremen and equipment for the Joint Venture.

$3$ During the course of the Project, a separate lawsuit arose in which the Plaintiffs alleged blacklisting by Parsons, P$1$ Group, WT$,$ and other defendants, Kendrick, et$.$ al$.$ v$.$ Allison$-$Smith Co$.,$ LLC$.,$ et al$.,$ No$.$ CJ$-2014-164($Mayes County filed Sept. $11,2014)($the Kendrick case$).$ On February $13,2015,$ Parsons and P$1$ Group entered a notice of settlement in the Kendrick case. WT was not party to the February $2015$ settlement and the Kendrick case is still ongoing.

$4$ Plaintiffs filed their petition in this case July $3,2017,$ bringing new claims for blacklisting and conspiracy to blacklist against Parsons, P$1$ Group, and WT$.$ Plaintiffs also brought a claim for breach of contract against Parsons and P$1$ Group. Plaintiffs' claims in this case stemmed from a July $23,2015$ email from a P$1$ Group employee to a Parsons employee regarding a list of names generated from P$1$ employment records $($the List$).$ The List indicated those persons who had been terminated from employment on the Project, along with the reasons for termination. Plaintiffs argued that this communication constituted blacklisting and thus a breach of the settlement agreement in the Kendrick case.

$5$ P$1$ Group filed its motion for summary judgment November $13,2017.$ P$1$ Group asserted that summary judgment should be granted because $(1)$ only six of the fifty Plaintiffs were included on the List, $(2)$ P$1$ Group had never employed thirty$-$one of Plaintiffs, $(3)$ the email between the P$1$ Group and Parsons employees was an internal communication and therefore not blacklisting, and $(4)$ even if the communication was between distinct entities, the communication was privileged. P$1$ Group further asserted that Plaintiffs' claim for conspiracy was without legal support, as the blacklisting statute did not provide for a conspiracy cause of action.

$6$ Parsons also moved for summary judgment November $22,2017.$ Like P$1$ Group, Parsons asserted that forty$-$four of the fifty Plaintiffs were not named on the List. Additionally, Parsons stated it had never employed any of the Plaintiffs and therefore could not be sued under the blacklisting statute. Parsons also asserted similar legal arguments as P$1$ Group, stating that because it was in the Joint Venture with P$1$ Group, the email between the two did not qualify as blacklisting.

$7$ WT filed its motion for summary judgment December $1,2017.$ WT maintained that it had never employed any of the Plaintiffs and had not been involved in the creation, dissemination, or receipt of the July $23,2015$ email or the List. WT refuted the conspiracy claim on the same bases.

$8$ The trial court held a hearing on the defendants' motions May $9,2018,$ and granted summary judgment June $15,2018.$ In its order, the trial court stated that because Parsons and P$1$ Group were in the Joint Venture, the List had not been published to a third party and did not qualify as blacklisting. The trial court also stated that no evidence had been presented indicating a breach of the settlement agreement by Parsons and P$1$ Group. Lastly, the trial court found there had been no evidence presented indicating WT$\text{'}$s involvement in the creation or sending of the List. The trial court therefore determined that there was no dispute of material fact and that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiffs appeal.

$9$ Proceedings for summary judgment are governed by Rule $13,$ Rules for District Courts, $12$ O$.$S$.2011,$ Ch$.2,$ App. $1.$ A trial court may grant summary judgment when there is no dispute as to a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Brown v$.$ All. Real Est