established by this court. See Firefighter’s Inst. for Racial Equal, ex. rel. Anderson v. City of St. Louis, 220 F.3d 898 (8th Cir.2000)(affirming district court for striking an untimely disclosure of expert and expert’s report under Rule 16). If the Declaration is viewed as a “supplement” setting forth information, reasoning and opinions in order to cure that part of her Report’s deficiencies, Rule 26 required such things to be disclosed in her critical initial Report. “The purpose of ... supplementary disclosures is just that — ... to supplement. These disclosures are not intended to provide an extension of the deadline by which a party must deliver the lion’s share of its expert information.” Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Co., Inc., 73 F.3d 546 (5th Cir.1996)(<HOLDING>); Loeffel Steel Prods., Inc. v. Delta Brands,
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence based upon the defendants noncompliance with the deadlines in rule 412c holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay evidence and evidence that violated the best evidence rule in deciding a summary judgment motion holding that district court did not abuse its discretion for excluding experts supplement disclosure since rule 26a requires that the initial disclosures be complete and detailed holding a trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to require disclosure of an informants name holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative