1. In National Hockey League v Metropolitan
Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1976), this Court
ruled that the failure to comply with Rule 26 and 37
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
severe sanctions. In this case, the Third Circuit
affirmed a district court's decision to deny a new trial
notwithstanding the facts that Rule 26 and Rule 37 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were violated in
bad faith.
The first question presented is:
Is a federal court required to follow the federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and procedural due process,
which mandate that an expert's report and deposition
testimony must be supplemented pretrial, or the
expert's testimony must be excluded at trial if the
testimony is at variance with the expert's report and
deposition testimony, and outside the scope of the
expert's report?

2. In United States v Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94
(1993), this Court held that "A witness commits
perjury if he gives false testimony concerning a
material matter with the willful intent to provide
false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion,
mistake, or faulty memory." In this context, the Court
of Appeals held that given that the witness's false
testimony occurred after he explained that his report
contained a factual error, that there was no clear
error in the district court's finding of no perjury.
The second question presented is:
May a court not find perjury even though a
mislead
and
designed
to
material statement, c
influence the jury, was knowingly testified to falsely?

Is a federal court required to follow the federal Rules of Civil Procedure and procedural due process, which mandate that an expert's report and deposition testimony must be supplemented pretrial, or the expert's testimony must be excluded at trial if the testimony is at variance with the expert's report and deposition testimony, and outside the scope of the expert's report?