Second, federal courts almost never hold hearings for civil motions anymore.
Third, documents are submitted to federal courts using the electronic case filing system, and documents filed are served by way of that same system. It's most certainly not an improper ex parte communication.
The key word being material. It is not enough that there be dispute about some fact. That fact must be material, i.e. a fact that would actually affect the outcome of the litigation. The court looks at any disputed facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (which is you when summary judgment is requested by the other side). Typically that means the court looks at the facts as you plead them and asks the question whether you would win if everything you said was true. If the answer is no, then you lose and summary judgment will be granted to the defendant.
By the way, it would be helpful if you confirmed that you represented yourself in this case. Don't suppose you'd like to post the case number and the court where the case was filed, would you?
How about RICO Act?
A witness simply lying in his/her testimony does not rise to the level of a RICO violation. A civil lawsuit under RICO requires that the defendant have violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962. There are several different acts listed in that section, but "Under all those subsections, to state a RICO claim, there must be: “(1) a person who engages in (2) a pattern of racketeering activity (3) connected to the acquisition, establishment, conduct, or control of an enterprise.” St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 224 F.3d 425, 439 (5th Cir. 2000). "A pattern of racketeering activity requires two or more predicate acts and a demonstration that the racketeering predicates are related and amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity." Id. at 441. The enterprise or organization must be involved in criminal activity.
Simply lying in court without more is not part of a pattern of racketeering activity, much less activity connected to the acquisition, establishment, conduct, or control of an enterprise. Your case was about an age discrimination case, presumably against your employer. I'm also guessing that your employer was not criminal enterprise and that you cannot tie the perjury to a pattern of racketeering in support of that enterprise. You need to prove all that to win a RICO claim and so far what you've stated falls far short of it.
The basic problem you have is this. In a typical lawsuit, if a witness lies or misstates some fact, it is up to you to expose the lie or misstatement in your cross examination so that the jury or judge can take that into account in judging the credibility of the testimony of the witness. So you have to prepared to do that at trial as best you can. If you are unable to do that and you lose the case, that's unfortunate. But the perjury or misstatement doesn't generally give you a new separate claim to pursue against the witness or defendant. So once the case against the employer and the appeals were done, that pretty much ends what you can do.
Appeals after the trial court are not do overs. You don't get to examine witnesses in the appeal; the appeal is based on th record from the trial court. Furthermore, appeals are mostly limited to challenging legal errors the judge made in the case. You don't get to challenge the factual findings of the judge or jury except in very limited circumstances.
I really think you ought to consult an attorney before you file any more lawsuits to see if there is anything you can do about this at this point. You seem to not be terribly knowledgeable of the law and court procedure, and that works against you. If there is something you can do, you may be missing it as a result of that lack of knowledge.