in order for there to be a lawsuit in the first place, somebody involved somewhere along the line is not telling the whole truth. power of attorney.com

Breaking an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is perjury. wikipedia

the crime of perjury depends not only upon the clarity of the questioning itself, but also upon the knowledge and reasonable understanding of the testifier as to what is meant by the questioning, we hold that a defendant may be found guilty of perjury if a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence presented that the defendant knew what the question meant and gave knowingly untruthful and materially misleading answers in response. USA v. Dezarn

Chief Justice Burger emphasized that the perjury statute refers to what the witness "states," not to what he "implies."  source Bronson v US?

As the California Supreme Court has stated:

[W]hen ··· a witness' answers are literally true he may not be faulted for failing to volunteer more explicit information. Although such testimony may cause a misleading impression due to the failure of counsel to ask more specific questions, the witness' failure to volunteer testimony to avoid the misleading impression does not constitute perjury because the crucial element of falsity is not present in his testimony. Chein v. Shumsky 

Under California law, falsity element of the crime of perjury requires that a statement be literally false; misleading and nonresponsive testimony that is literally true cannot support a perjury conviction. Chein v. Shumsky, C.A.9 (Cal.)2004, 373 F.3d 978, certiorari denied 125 S.Ct. 415, 543 U.S. 956, 160 L.Ed.2d 318West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 118