The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 007) 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 128, 129, 130, 131, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 were read on this motion to/for DISCOVERY. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part. The branch of the motion to strike the complaint and plaintiff’s answer to defendants’ counterclaims is granted, and the branch of motion to compel plaintiff’s appearance for a deposition and provide full documentation of his health condition is denied as moot. The request for attorneys’ fees is denied at this time. Background In this case, plaintiff was an employee and chief financial officer of defendants’ branded business for decades and they are now suing each other for all sorts of alleged nefarious activities. The details of the allegations are not relevant here. What is now relevant is that plaintiff has failed to honor discovery obligations. The Court certainly acknowledges that the history of these failures is blamed on plaintiff’s alleged infirmity, but despite being given multiple opportunities to prove he is indeed sick, that has not been done. All that has been accomplished by the multiple motions has been delay. There is still no proof of infirmity and plaintiff still has not been deposed. Despite repeated requests, plaintiff never produced any proof of his ailments other than a physician’s assistant’s note that was not even notarized. Even now, plaintiff relies on the insistence of his wife that his condition is too fragile to appear for a deposition(NYSCEF Doc. No. 141 at 1). Those representations are not the same as substantive medical documentation suggesting a health condition that prevents plaintiff from being deposed; plus, plaintiff’s wife’s motivations raise additional questions, particularly considering the fact that she has not arranged for the production of sufficient medical documentation about this alleged infirmity for more than a year. Moreover, defendants claim that one of the ways plaintiff stole funds from defendant was giving his wife a “no show” job and that she participated in dissipating and hiding assets (see e.g., NYSCEF Doc. 86,
