States v. Lopez, 649 F.3d 1222, 1247 (11th Cir.2011). Rule 403 should be used “only when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value that the rule permits exclusion.” King, 713 F.2d at 631 (emphasis in original). In applying Rule 403, courts must “look at the evidence in a light most favorable to admission, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its undue prejudicial impact.” United States v. Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d 720, 734 (11th Cir.2010). Because of this, a district court’s “discretion to exclude evidence ida law, a plaintiff bears the burden of proof on all four el that the defendant “need not prove another cause” but “only has to convince the trier of fact that the alleged negligence was not the legal cause of the injury.” 977 F.2d 673, 676 (1st Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The defendant’s alternative cause theories
holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial holding that the court had an adequate record to grant the defendants motion for summary judgment because the relevant evidence would have been in plaintiffs possession holding that the defendants motion in limine which sought to exclude the evidence to which the defendant later made a general objection at trial adequately provided the context for determining the specific ground of objection holding that the district courts decision to grant plaintiffs motion in limine to exclude the defendants evidence because it was stated in terms of mere possibility instead of probability shifted the burden of proof to the defendant holding unconstitutional a mandatory rebuttable presumption that shifted to the defendant a burden of persuasion on the issue of intent