In Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v. APP Intl. Fin. Co., B. V., 28 A.D.3d 322 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 705 [2008]) the court granted a motion by plaintiffs for an order sealing and restricting access to certain documents by defendants' counsel in connection with their motion for summary judgment. There, although the plaintiffs maintained that the documents contained price information which constituted trade secrets essential to their business, the defendants objected to restricting access to only counsel on the ground that the court's order interfered with counsel's ability to consult with his clients about facts essential to their defense, especially as they were not plaintiffs' competitors. In reversing the motion court, the Appellate Division, First Department, observed that it has been reluctant in the past to permit the sealing of court records, even if both sides agree to it, and has permitted sealing only in strictly limited circumstances. It also noted that although the plaintiffs argued that the information constituted a trade secret, the trial court made no such finding, and that sealing is not appropriate to protect an advantage one side may have over another in negotiating a commercial agreement, especially where the parties are not business competitors. The Court thus held that "[r]ecords and/or documents should not be sealed simply to enable one of the parties to retain an advantage over the other party when such sealing prevents counsel from fully discussing with their clients all of the relevant information in the case so as to properly formulate a defense to the action against them." (28 AD3d at 326).