DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the orders entered November 27, 2002, and June 18, 2003, are affirmed, without costs or disbursement; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered April 17, 2002, is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to add three new causes of action, as he failed to make an evidentiary showing that any of the proposed causes of action have merit ( see Mylonas v. Town of Brookhaven, 305 A.D.2d 561). "While leave to amend a complaint should be freely granted ( see CPLR 3025[b]), a movant must make some evidentiary showing, and `a court must examine the underlying merit of the proposed claims, since to do otherwise would be wasteful of judicial resources'" ( Toscano v. Toscano, 302 A.D.2d 453, 454, quoting Morgan v. Propsect Park Assoc. Holdings, 251 A.D.2d 306).
The subpoena duces tecum served on the nonparty, Wechsler, Harwood, Halebian Feffer, LLP, was properly quashed as there were no special circumstances warranting disclosure from a nonparty, and the subpoena was overbroad ( see Matter of Validation Review Assocs., 237 A.D.2d 614).
The requirement of a confidentiality agreement may be imposed in the appropriate case if the material is subject to abuse if widely disseminated ( see McLaughlin v. G.D. Searle, Inc., 38 A.D.2d 810). In the instant case, the Supreme Court determined, in its discretion, that a confidentiality agreement was warranted. The proposed confidentiality agreement was modified at the plaintiff's request. No further relief was warranted.
There was no reason to provide the defendants with plaintiff's tax returns. At issue here is a provision of the employment agreement which states that the aggregate compensation and benefits of the defendants' other employees shall not be "greater than that made available to Dr. Butt hereunder" (emphasis supplied). The plaintiff's tax returns are irrelevant to the question of the aggregate compensation and benefits of the defendants' other employees. The defendants failed to establish the relevancy of the plaintiff's tax returns to any issue in the case.
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., SMITH, H. MILLER and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.