5 7 obviously, what may or nay not be asked of 2 Mr. Edwards and Mr. Epstein principally on 3 these cases or these Issues, the global 4 order of the Court would be that those 5 individual claims would not be subject to 6 discussion as to the merits, as Mr. Scarola 7 has stipulated. However, as it relates to both probable 9 cause, i.e., motive and malice, the number 10 of claims -- that is, speaking in terms of 11 voltme -- that Hr. Epstein was facing at the 12 time that he brought the suit and continued 13 the prosecution of that suit would be 14 relevant. So that's the distinction being 15 drawn by the Court, the detail, the merits, 16 whatever may have been discovered as it 22 related to those cases would not be 38 individually admissible in evidence, or any 20 of those details from those cases. 20 However, as I said, the sheer number of 21 cases nay be relevant, i.e., to tend to 22 prove or disprove a materiel fact as it 22 r 00000 a to probable cause and malice. So 24 that's the decision. 25 Next issue, please. 1 MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank you, Your Honor. She next -- I think based on that 3 rullnq, Your Honor Would preclude the a settlenents of any of the claimants, a including the settlement amounts of the a three that were represented by Hr. Edwards. 7 And in our notion in 11M/60, mo cited o the Florida Evidence Code 90.408, which 9 precludes the admissibility or evidence of 10 offers to compromise or settlements to prove 11 liability or absence of liability. 12 She cases settle all the tine for many 13 different reasons. And I know that value 14 has become an issue in this case of 25 Mr. Edwards' three claimants, but certainly 26 not of any of the other claims that 27 Mr. Epstein may have settled. So that's the 28 first issue. Any other cases that he may 29 have settled are wholly irrelevant and 20 should be precluded. 21 THE COURT: Let me understand. The 22 issue of any