probation officers provided the courts, namely, “providing information in the course of the customer’s daily business operation[,] ... d[id] not relate to court policy or’ overall operational management but to the courts’ day-to-day production process.” Id. Thus, the court determined that the probation officers’ work did not directly relate to the management or general business operations of the employer. A strong argument can be made that the Investigators’ work in this case did not satisfy the directly related element for similar reasons.' It is of course true that while the primary duty of both the probation officers in Bratt and the Investigators before us was to conduct factual investigations and report their results, the information provided by the probation o 764 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), with Shockley, 997 F.2d at 28-29 (holding
holding experts experience knowledge and training is considered in determining reliability holding that failure to furnish proper training instruction training manuals and documents to officer who injured plaintiff failure to provide adequate tests for that officer and failure to discipline that officer fell outside ttcas property waiver recognizing an implied warranty in horse training because training introduces new elements to enhance the horses capabilities and personality and extinguishes undesirable traits holding that ems training lieutenants position met criteria because the lieutenants developed coordinated implemented and conducted ems training programs  prepared lesson plans and training aids supervised delivery of training and tests and evaluated new equipment holding that the plaintiff had offered insufficient evidence to establish deliberate indifference in a failuretotrain claim in part because the plaintiff did not present evidence that the training received was inadequate or evidence of any specific additional training that the employees should have received