 and whether the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for the redress of his grievance."  Id. at 1243-44 (citations and internal quotations omitted).  The district court articulated none of these factors, and they are not conducive to the result Appellees seek.


31
First, while this court has not yet determined whether the issuance of a search warrant combined with a sealed affidavit constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Seventh Circuit has expressly affirmed the practice.  See In re Eyecare Physicians of America, 100 F.3d 514, 516 (7th Cir.1996).  The Seventh Circuit observed that "no provision within the Fourth Amendment grants a fundamental right of access to sealed search warrant affidavits before an indictment."  Id. at 517.   This court ordinarily abides by the decisions of our sister circuits, and we do so with respect to this sensible decision.  Accordingly government did not display "callous disregard" of Appellees' rights.


32
The next two factors promoting anomalous jurisdiction are likewise unsatisfied.  Appellees have neither explained their specific interest in and need for the documents seized pursuant to the warrant, nor have they stated how they will be irreparably injured by denial of the return of the property.  Appellees have not indicated, for example, whether they requested a copy of the documents seized, and whether the government refused to comply with such a request.  See, e.g., Eyecare Physicians, 100 F.3d at 515 (noting that the government offered to provide appellant with copies of the seized documents).  The absence of any showing of necessity or irreparable injury weigh against the exercise of anomalous jurisdiction.


33
Finally, unlike the situation in Richey,3 these Appellees have an adequate remedy at law.  They failed to avail themselves of the preindictment remedy provided by Rule 41(e) in the Colorado federal court.  Such a motion, if granted, might well have affected the government's decision whether to continue seeking an indictment.  Thus, this also was 