OPINION AND ORDER In this contract dispute over money earned from a couple’s appearances on reality television and subsequent deals with various brands, the latest drama features the couple, their talent manager, and former branding agent. Envy Branding, LLC (“Envy” or “Plaintiff”) is a New York company that identifies opportunities for celebrities to generate revenue from licensing their image or brand. Envy brings this action against The William Gerard Group, LLC (“TWGG”), William G. Dzombak (“Dzombak” and, together with TWGG, the “TWGG Defendants”), Chelsea DeBoer née Houska (“Chelsea”), Cole DeBoer (“Cole” and, together with Chelsea, the “DeBoers”), C&A Enterprises (“C&A”), Dakota Ln LLC (“Dakota Ln”), Down Home DeBoer’s LLC (“DHD”), DeBoer Holding Company LLC (“DeBoer Holding”), and Aubree Says LLC (“Aubree Says” and, together with C&A, Dakota Ln, DHD, and DeBoer Holding, the “DeBoer Companies”). Envy claims that the TWGG Defendants, the DeBoers, and the DeBoer Companies (together, “Defendants”) violated a set of agreements by, among other things, withholding revenue from the DeBoers’ appearances on television and instructing third-party brands not to work with Envy on sponsorship deals for the DeBoers. Envy brings claims under New York common law for breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual and business relationships, and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit. See generally ECF No. 59 (the “First Amended Complaint” or “FAC”). In response, Defendants bring counterclaims for breach of contract under the same agreements, arguing that Envy first breached the agreements by withholding revenue collected from the DeBoers’ branding deals. See generally ECF No. 60 (“Ans.”). The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment on all the claims at issue.1 See ECF Nos. 83 (“Pl. Br.”), 98 (“Df. Br.”), 107 (“Df. Opp.”), 119 (“Pl. Opp.”), 121 (“Pl. Reply”), 122 (“Df. Reply”). In connection with its summary-judgment motion, Envy has also moved to preclude the report and testimony of Defendants’ expert witness. ECF No. 82-1 (“Begakis Br.”). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part both motions for summary judgment, as well as Plaintiff’s motion to preclude Defendants’ expert. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed. A. The Parties Sara Nemerov is the founder and chief executive officer of Envy, a branding and licensing company whose “principal business is licensing intellectual property and identifying branding opportunities for celebrities to generate revenue from social media posts.” Pl. RSOF 99; see id. 2. William G. Dzombak owns and operates TWGG, a talent-management company that manages, among others, Chelsea and Cole DeBoer. Id.
1, 16, 18. The DeBoers are a married couple living in South Dakota. Df. RSOF 1. Both Chelsea and Cole have appeared on Teen Mom 2, a reality television show that initially aired on MTV. Id. 2. The DeBoers own and control several companies. C&A is a limited-liability company that Chelsea incorporated to, among other things, enter into licensing and branding deals. Id. 8. The DeBoers are the members of Dakota Ln, DHD, DeBoer Holding, and CCAS Holding LLC, all limited-liability companies formed under South Dakota law. Id.
