Case 2:12-cv-01283-HGB-DEK Document 92-2 Filed 08/06/12 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- x : JONATHAN VILMA, : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CVPlaintiff, : 1283 c/w 12-CV-1718 and 12: CV-1744 VERSUS : : SECTION: C : ROGER GOODELL, ET AL, : DIVISION: (3) : Defendants. : JUDGE HELEN G. BERRIGAN : THIS DOCUMENT REFERS TO 12-CV-1718: : MAGISTRATE JUDGE : DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III JONATHAN VILMA, : : VERSUS : : THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE. : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- x PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN LIGHT OF RECENT PUBLIC COMMENTS PETER R. GINSBERG LAW, LLC Peter R. Ginsberg, pro hac vice 12 E. 49th St., 30th Floor New York, NY 10017 (646) 374-0030 pginsberg@prglaw.com WILLIAMS LAW GROUP, LLC Conrad S.P. Williams, III (14499) J. Christopher Zainey, Jr. (32022) 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1625 New Orleans, LA 70112 (985) 876-7595 duke@williamslawgroup.org Attorneys for Plaintiff Jonathan Vilma

Case 2:12-cv-01283-HGB-DEK Document 92-2 Filed 08/06/12 Page 2 of 4

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Since the parties filed pleadings on August 3, 2012, Roger Goodell has made various public statements that, we respectfully submit, warrant judicial attention. GOODELL HAS ADMITTED TO YET ANOTHER CBA VIOLATION The NFL-NFLPA CBA, Article 46 Section 2(ii), mandates that Goodell could only rely on exhibits provided to Jonathan Vilma three calendar days prior to the Appeal Hearing in rendering his decision regarding Vilmas suspension. This past weekend, Goodell told the media that the NFL has more evidence than it[has] revealed publicly so far to support the suspension. As Vilma previously has argued, Goodell claims to have reviewed 50,000 pages of evidence, but produced approximately 180 pages prior to the Appeal Hearing. It is simply impossible that Goodell only considered the evidence produced prior to the Appeal Hearing, both because the 180 pages do not come close to justifying any punishment and because it is humanly impossible to block out, and not consider, over 99 per cent of the information gathered. Now, in light of the airing of the 180 pages, and the dearth of evidence provided, Goodell is publicly attempting to justify his actions based upon purported undisclosed evidence. This admission provides additional support to Vilmas argument that: the NFL breached its CBA obligation to produce all evidence to be considered by the arbitrator in a conduct detrimental proceeding; Goodell acted in an impermissibly biased manner; and, Goodell created and permitted a process tolerated neither by the CBA nor by federal law. GOODELL HAS ADMITTED TO REVISING THE ALLEGATIONS POST-APPEAL AND POST-HEARING According to Goodell, in comments he made to the media this weekend, the NFL no longer is pursuing punishment for offering monetary incentives to injure pre-designated

Case 2:12-cv-01283-HGB-DEK Document 92-2 Filed 08/06/12 Page 3 of 4

opposing players. Now, according to Goodells public statements, he believes the punishment imposed is justified if players received monetary rewards for clean, hard plays that had the unintended consequence of injuring an opposing player. The CBA mandates that a player receive fair notice of the allegations being faced. Vilma consistently has challenged the lack of due process and notice provided. Now, post-punishment, Goodell has, at least tacitly, admitted that the gravamen of the allegations set forth in Vilmas Notice of Suspension dated May 2, 2012, are not, in fact, the basis of the punishment. The May 2 Notice cites specific allegations and conclusions of specific offer[s] of bounties against specific players, and the emphasis at the Appeal Hearing was the same. Now, Goodell has revised the allegation to be that the Saints engaged in a program that rewarded players for good, clean plays that did not involve designated specific opposing players for injury. As previously argued, CBA Article 14 governs the type of pay for performance program now being described by Goodell. Further, we respectfully submit that Goodells

admission that the punishment cannot be justified by a Bounty Program as previously alleged, both in notices to Vilma and by Goodell in public statements, warrants judicial notice. LEAKS TO THE MEDIA OF SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS Finally, Vilma entered into settlement discussions with the NFL in good faith. Vilma is well aware of, and has absolutely complied with, his obligations to safeguard the existence and substance of all such discussions, as have all of his representatives. Media reporting of

settlement discussions, attributed to NFL sources, coming the day after the harsh and unfortunate comments from Goodell, some of which are identified above, reflect a long-standing media campaign by Goodell and the NFL in this matter.

Case 2:12-cv-01283-HGB-DEK Document 92-2 Filed 08/06/12 Page 4 of 4

Vilma respectfully requests the Court to make inquiry regarding the breach of the obligations to retain the confidentiality of settlement discussions.

Dated: New York, New York August 6, 2012

Respectfully submitted, PETER R. GINSBERG LAW, LLC

By: s/ Peter R. Ginsberg_________ Peter R. Ginsberg, pro hac vice 12 East 49th Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10017 (646) 374-0030 pginsberg@prglaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: New Orleans, Louisiana August 6, 2012 WILLIAMS LAW GROUP, LLC

By: s/ Conrad S. P. Williams, III_______ Conrad S.P. Williams, III (14499) J. Christopher Zainey, Jr. (32022) 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1625 New Orleans, LA 70112 (985) 876-7595 duke@williamslawgroup.org chris@williamslawgroup.org Attorneys for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 6th Day of August, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record. /s/ Conrad S.P. Williams, III