J. MICHAEL BURMAN. RA' GREGORY W. COLEMAN. PA. ROBERT D. CRITTON. JR.. PA.' BERNARD LEBEDEKER MARK T. LUTTIER, PA. JEFFREY C. PEPIN MICHAEL J. PIKE HEATHER McNAMARA RUDA FLORIDA BOARD CERTIFIED OFIL TRIAL. LAWYER i V er BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP July 8, 2009 SENT BY FEDERAL EXPRESS A. Marie Villafana, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 East Broward Boulevard, 79' Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Re: Jane Doe No. 8 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 09-CV-80802-Marra/Johnson Dear Ms. Villafana: ADELQUI I. BENAVENTE PARALEGAL! INVESTIGATOR BARBARA M. McKBNNA ASHLIE STOKEN•BARING DEITY STOKES PARALEGALS RITA H. BUDNYK OF COMMA. As you are aware, I am Mr. Epstein's attorney in the civil cases that have been filed against him. While I am certainly familiar with the NPA, it is clear to me that my interpretation of it may differ from yours (USAO) or one of the many plaintiffs' attorneys as it relates to what I can do or assert in defense of Mr. Epstein. As I expressed to Judge Marra, my charge from Mr. Epstein is to take no action that could reasonably be considered to be a violation of the NPA. With that in mind, I am sending our motion to dismiss in Jane Doe #8, along with a copy of her complaint. While I know you expressed to Mr. Lefkowitz that you (USAO) were not inclined to review pleadings and offer advisory opinions, I would ask that you reconsider and review our motion. The Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 8 is not exclusively asserting a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255, and thus, the terms of the NPA are not implicated. In fact, Jane Doe No. 8's counsel, Adam Horowitz, who also is counsel for Plaintiffs Jane Does Nos. 2 through 7 in other civil actions against Mr. Epstein, in the June 12, 2009 hearing before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra (at which you were also present) conceded that — The provision (of the NPA) relating to Mr. Epstein being unable to contest