Summary
noting that Briscoe would offer "a hollow immunity" if a party "could turn around and say, in effect: 'True, your delivery of bad testimony is immunized, but preparing to deliver that testimony is not, so I can litigate the substance of your testimony.'"
Summary of this case from Canen v. ChapmanOpinion
No. 03-1325.
March 24, 2004. March 26, 2004. March 29, 2004.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, No. 03 C 87.
ORDER
The court has reviewed the transcript of the district court's remarks referenced in its January 28, 2003, minute order, which served as the basis for dismissing the complaint in case no. 03 C 87. We are of the opinion that the reasoning supplied by the district court does not provide an adequate basis for review. See Circuit Rule 50. Accordingly, we remand this case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to provide a detailed written explanation of its decision. The district court's revised order is due within 30 days of the date of this order. The parties shall have fourteen days thereafter to file supplemental briefs with this court if they wish.