ruling, plaintiffs moved for certification of interlocutory appeal of the December 9 Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). As a threshold matter, the Eleventh Circuit has characterized § 1292(b) interlocutory appeals as a “rare exception” to the premise that the great bulk of appellate review must be conducted after final judgment. McFarlin v. Conseco Services, LLC, 381 F.3d 1251, 1264 (11th Cir.2004); see also OFS Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker and Green, P.C., 549 F.3d 1344, 1359 (11th Cir.2008) (pointing out that “ § 1292(b) sets a high threshold for certification to prevent piecemeal appeals” and that “[m]ost interlocutory orders do not meet this test”); United States v. One Parcel of Real Property With Bldgs., Appurtenances & Improvements, 767 F.2d 1495, 1498 (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Camacho v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority, 369
recognizing that the strong presumption against protective orders necessitates a balancing of interests recognizing a strong presumption favoring arbitrability recognizing presumption recognizing strong presumption against interlocutory appeals recognizing this presumption