The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 were read on this motion for LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs provide safety-related services to construction contractors. Plaintiffs have sued defendants for allegedly misappropriating plaintiffs’ confidential information and clients. Defendant Sandeep Gunnala, formerly an employee of plaintiffs, has counterclaimed for a share of plaintiffs’ profits in 2016 through 2018. Gunnala has alleged that during his employment with plaintiffs he was contractually entitled to — but did not receive — that share of profits as a bonus. During the course of this action, the parties have had numerous (and extensive) disagreements over the scope of their respective discovery obligations. In motion sequence 004, plaintiffs move to compel certain discovery. Defendants cross-move for leave to amend to expand the scope of their first counterclaim, and to compel certain discovery of their own. This interim order is concerned only with the aspect of defendants’ cross-motion on motion sequence 004 seeking leave to amend. The motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND As asserted in defendants’ answer to plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the first counterclaim alleges that under Gunnala’s contract with plaintiffs, they agreed to pay him “each year a percentage of [plaintiffs'] annual profits” (NYSCEF No. 31 at 119); and that after paying him the agreed-upon percentage from 2011 through the end of 2015, plaintiffs “without reason or justification ceased paying Gunnala the agreed upon contract distribution in 2016, 2017 and for the first quarter of 2018″ (id. at
120-121). To support this counterclaim, defendants sought to compel production of plaintiffs’ payroll records and credit card statements for 2012 to date. (See NYSCEF No. 52 at