nducted.  Consequently, although the movants never objected to the search, the court went them one better on relief from the grand jury subpoena.  He ordered that unless the search warrant affidavit was unsealed, he would suppress the evidence from the search.  The government has appealed.  Because this order lacks supporting authority and, indeed, flouts the governing procedures for contest of search warrants and grand jury subpoenas, we reverse.


2
On May 6, 1996, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas requested two grand jury subpoenas, to be served on two Colorado organizations, Pro Vantage One International, L.L.C., and Pro Vantage One (collectively, "Pro Vantage"), requiring them to produce documents and appear before a Houston, Texas federal grand jury.  In connection with the grand jury investigation, the government also applied to a federal magistrate judge in Colorado for a search warrant.  The magistrate judge promptly issued the warrant, which was executed on May 15 at a house in Colorado.  The printed search warrant form completed by the government did not list the objects of the search.  Instead, the form stated:


3
[T]here is now concealed a certain person or property, namely (describe the person or property)

PLEASE SEE AFFIDAVIT

4
The only attachment described the premises with a photograph of the building to be searched.  By request of the government, the Colorado magistrate judge sealed the application and affidavit supporting the search warrant except to law enforcement officials.  Thus, Pro Vantage never received the affidavit that listed the objects of the search in the warrant.  After a large volume of documents was seized pursuant to the warrant, however, Pro Vantage was given an inventory.


5
On July 25, Pro Vantage One International, L.L.C. and its manager Thomas Kiser ("Appellees") moved to quash the grand jury subpoenas in the Southern District of Texas, arguing that the subpoenas are impermissibly overbroad and lacking in particularity in violation of the Fo