ORDER

The panel recently entered three orders in connection with this appeal: the order vacating the grant of summary judgment, remanding the case to the District Court; an order granting a motion “to proceed under seal and in pseudonym”; and an order denying intervention sought by sev *179 eral publications desirous of challenging the sealing of the case, in which we stated “movant may pursue this matter with the District Court upon remand”. We believe we should clarify the scope of the remand regarding the sealing order. It is not our intention that the order we entered sealing the record on appeal would prevent the District Court from considering this issue anew; indeed, our order suggesting further pursuit of this issue was intended to reflect our view that the District Court was the better court in which this issue could be litigated, since it could hold a hearing, and had done so previously on this very issue at the outset of the case, and since the record on appeal consists in large measure of the record made in the District Court. The issue of the propriety of the continued sealing of the case now that it will proceed to trial is an important one; the District Court should feel free to decide this issue unfettered by our rulings to date. 2