United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
KATHY KOCUREK ET AL.
FRANK'S CASING CREW & RENTAL TOOLS, LLC, ET AL.
RULING ON MOTION
PATRICK J. HANNA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
pending is the plaintiffs' motion to compel (Rec. Doc.
50). The motion is opposed. Considering the evidence, the
law, and the arguments of the parties, and for the reasons
fully explained below, the motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
Kathy Kocurek and Le Chat Interiors, Inc. (collectively
“Le Chat”) have brought a breach of contract
claim against Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools LLC
(“Frank's”) and a tortious interference with
contract claim against the former President and CEO of
Frank's, Gary Luquette. On March 1');">14');">4');">4');">4, 201');">13, Le Chat and
Frank's executed a Letter of Engagement pursuant to which
Le Chat was to perform interior design services for an office
building that was being constructed by Frank's. [Rec.
Doc. 50-4');">4');">4');">4, p. 2');">p. 2]. The Letter was executed on behalf of
Frank's by Keith Mosing who was the President and CEO of
Frank's at the time. [Id.] The Letter confirmed
an “agreement for interior design services to be
performed by Le Chat . . . to complete the project at
Frank's . . .” [Id.] The terms contained
in the Letter were as follows:
The design concept and implementation shall include
developing a color scheme, sourcing furniture, spatial
planning, fixtures, wall coverings, fabrics, and materials;
design custom furniture and built ins; design window
treatments where applicable; selection of materials for
flooring, counters and cabinetry, hardware, and presentation
of selections that represent the best choices for your space.
For the professional services described, the designer's
compensation shall be $1');">100.00 per hour billed on a monthly
201');">15, Frank's corporate leadership changed and Luquette
became the President and CEO. On March 1');">12, 201');">15, Luquette
terminated the services provided by Le Chat prior to
completion of the project. [Rec. Doc. 50-4');">4');">4');">4, p. 5]. Gensler
Architecture, Design & Planning, P.C.
(“Gensler”) provided Frank's with a
“Key Findings Report” dated March 9, 201');">15 in
which Gensler proposed recommendations for the interior
design of the project. [Rec. Doc. 50-4');">4');">4');">4, pp. 1');">14');">4');">4');">43- 1');">153]. On
March 23, 201');">15, Luquette, on behalf of Frank's, signed a
contract with Gensler that had an effective date of February
27, 201');">15. [Rec. Doc. 50-4');">4');">4');">4, pp. 1');">154');">4');">4');">4-1');">159].[1');">1" name="FN1');">1" id="FN1');">1">1');">1] The Subject Line
provides “Agreement for Interior Architectural
Services.” [Rec. Doc. 50-4');">4');">4');">4, p. 1');">154');">4');">4');">4]. The Gensler
“Basic Services” are described as follows:
[D]esign services for all interiors beyond the core on levels
one through four, including office and workstations space,
meeting spaces, common areas, and storage; and signs required
by code, and coordination of design services for the
following building systems or components currently being
provided by other consultants: mechanical, electrical,
plumbing, structural, and lighting engineering.
[Id. p. 1');">155].
was to be compensated for Basic Services in a lump sum (which
is redacted) that was broken down into Phase One and Two
Architectural Services, Phase Three Architectural Services
and Furniture Selection and Specifications. [Id. p.
1');">158]. In addition, there was a cost plus arrangement (also
redacted) for reimbursable expenses and other consultant fees
invoiced through Gensler. [Id.].
issued Work Authorizations which are contained in Exhibit C
to the plaintiffs' motion. [Rec. Doc.
50-5]. The Work Authorizations contain a myriad
of services and materials provided to, and ostensibly paid
for by, Frank's. The Work Authorizations are signed by
representatives of Gensler and Frank's and contain
pricing information in each. The services described in the
Work Authorizations far exceed those set forth in the Letter
Agreement provided by Le Chat.
C also contains internal reports from Frank's personnel
reviewing the project, reporting of site visits, and making
recommendations. [Rec. Doc. 50-5, Conf. Def. pp. 2');">p. 24');">4');">4');">42- 24');">4');">4');">47].
It is clear from these documents that there are multiple
contractors/vendors in a variety of areas that do not include
work done by LeChat and would not have ever been under Le
motion, the plaintiffs seek two types of information. First,
they want detailed, “specific itemizations of payments
for interior design work on the Project that include: a) the
identity of the person paid; b) the amount paid; c) payment
dates: and d) and itemized description of the work performed,
i.e. payment for furniture, rugs, draperies, etc.”
[Rec. Doc. 50-1');">1, p. 2');">p. 2]. In another part of the motion, the
plaintiffs request “invoices and payment for interior
design work actually performed to complete the Frank's
office Project and invoices and payments for furniture and
other interior design furnishings actually purchased for use
in the ...