district court has broad discretion to determine the relevance and admissibility of any given piece of evidence.”). “Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. The district court may exclude relevant evidence if it determines “that the probative value of the evidence ‘is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.’ ” Merrill, 513 F.3d at 1301 (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 403). See also United States v. Church, 955 F.2d 688, 703 (11th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The district court did not abuse its
recognizing a strong presumption favoring arbitrability recognizing a strong policy preference in favor of arbitration recognizing strong presumption against interlocutory appeals recognizing rule 403s strong presumption in favor of admissibility recognizing presumption