government’s serious and legitimate concern that its employee resources not be commandeered into service by private litigants to the detriment of the smooth functioning of government operations.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 34 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir.1994). Accordingly, because the Court agrees with the VA’s assessment of the relative burdens of the subpoenas on the agency, its patients, Dr. Sher and Ms. Batista, the Court finds that the subpoenas would cause an “undue burden” as defined in the Rules. In addition, the Court does not necessarily agree that it is bound by VA regulation 38 C.F.R. § 14.808 to exclude any expert or opinion testimony by VA employees. See Carter v. Mississippi Dep’t of Corrections, No. 88-CV-213, 1996 WL 407241, at *3 (N.D.Miss. May 24, 1996) (<HOLDING>). However, the Court nevertheless can exercise
holding the district courts decision not to allow an expert to rely on a note found in a hospital record was within the courts discretion because the court found that the note was too unreliable to be used as the basis for an expert opinion holding that the va could not rely on 38 cfr  14808 to circumvent the authority of the court to require a va employee to provide expert or opinion testimony holding the commission cannot rely on a va rating to find a claimant was totally disabled holding agency may not rely on expert opinion without disclosing hard data supporting opinion to the public holding that the trial court may rely on the testimony of an expert even if the expert did not interview the mother daughter or nonocs service providers