With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the expert report was based on newly discovered evidence, see Infax, 72 F.3d at 495, or that Powell was somehow confused or made an honest mistake, see Kennett-Murray Corp. v. Bone, 622 F.2d 887, 894 (5th Cir.1980) (reversing the district court’s grant of motion for summary judgment because it found that, although defendant’s deposition contradicted his later affidavit on a dispositive fact, the contradiction could well have been attributed to a legitimate reason). Furthermore, striking Hreha’s affidavit and expert report and granting plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of product identification promotes the orderly disposition of litigation and affirms the notions of justice and fair play. See Radobenko v. Automated Equipment Corp., 520 F.2d 540, 544 (9th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Perma Research, 410 F.2d at 578);

A: holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate
B: holding that allowing the nonmovant to create a genuine issue of material fact based upon selfserving contradictory depositions and affidavits undermines the utility of summary judgment as a procedure for screening out sham issues of fact
C: holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment
D: holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment
B.