April 28, 2011

By CM/ECF:

Michael E. Gans
Clerk of the Court
United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit
Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse
Room 24.329
111 South 10th Street
St. Louis, MO 61302

Re: Tom Brady, et al., v. National Football League, et al., No. 11-1898

Dear Mr. Gans:

Earlier today, counsel for the Brady plaintiffs-appellees asked the Court to hold “in abeyance” until after
noon tomorrow our clients’ request for a temporary stay of the district court’s injunction, pending the
Eighth Circuit’s ruling on the stay pending appeal. In light of the nature and purpose of a temporary stay,
holding the request in abeyance, of course, is equivalent to denying it.

At the same time they are asking this Court to defer (and thus deny) even temporary administrative
relief to allow the Court an opportunity to process our stay request in an orderly manner, however,
counsel for the Brady plaintiffs are demanding immediate compliance under explicit threat of
contempt. In particular, counsel sent a letter to counsel for the NFL Defendants stating that they believe
the NFL Defendants are in contempt if they do not immediately comply with the district court’s
injunction. A copy of that letter is attached.

The Brady plaintiffs cannot have it both ways. They cannot threaten immediate contempt sanctions
against the NFL Defendants, while at the same time asking this Court to delay addressing the NFL
Defendants’ request for the temporary stay. Indeed, the plaintiffs’ threat of contempt only underscores
the need for a temporary stay.

The Court’s rules provide a ready solution to prevent such a Catch-22 and to preserve the Court’s own
ability to consider the stay request in an orderly manner: a temporary stay to preserve the status quo
for the brief period it takes for the Court to consider a stay request. Eighth Circuit Rule 27A(b)(4). Since
the Brady plaintiffs have indicated that they will respond by tomorrow at noon to the NFL’s request for a
stay pending appeal and a request for an expedited appeal, the temporary stay in this case, even
allowing for the reply brief allowed by the rules and this Court’s deliberations, is unlikely to last for any
significant interval.

Appellate Case: 11-1898 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2011 Entry ID: 3781827
Mr. Michael E. Gans
Clerk of the Court
April 28, 2011
Page 2

In that short time, the Brady plaintiffs can make no possible claim of irreparable harm if the lockout that
has already been in place for a month and a half continues. These same plaintiffs did not even seek a
temporary restraining order. On the other hand, if a temporary stay is not granted, the NFL Defendants
must either immediately initiate steps to comply with an injunction that this Court may stay as soon as it
deliberates, or else face exposure to contempt sanctions. Complying with the injunction will require the
NFL to coordinate with all 32 member clubs—who, according to the Brady plaintiffs, are competitors as
well as fellow members of the League—to ensure a coordinated start to the next League year. It will be
a complex process that requires time to coordinate. And this occurs at a time—during the NFL Draft,
which begins this evening—when those at the League and the clubs responsible for player-related
matters have substantial other responsibilities.

For these reasons, the NFL Defendants respectfully ask the Court to consider and grant their motion for
a temporary stay as soon as the Court can address it to preserve the status quo while the Court
considers the parties’ briefing on the stay pending appeal and expedited appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Paul D. Clement
Paul D. Clement
Counsel for Appellants

Encl.

cc: (w/encl.)
All counsel of record

Appellate Case: 11-1898 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2011 Entry ID: 3781827
767 Fifth Avenue Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
New York, NY 101530119
+1 212 310 8000 tel
+1 212 310 8007 fax

James W. Quinn
+1 212 3108385
jamesquinnweiLcom

April 28, 2011 BY EMAlL

Gregg H. Levy
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Gregg,

As I made clear in my letter of yesterday, now that Judge Nelson has denied the NFL Defendants'
motion for a stay, Plaintiffs expect that the League will immediately comply with Judge Nelson's order
enjoining the lockout ("Injunction Order"). As you are aware, since Judge Nelson's Injunction Order
the League has failed to lift the lockout. In essence, the League has improperly granted itself a
temporary stay of that order. This "self-help" was in no way justified under the Injunction Order, which
enjoined the lockout with immediate effect.

Despite the League's failure to comply with the Injunction Order, my letter informed you that we would
wait to further pursue this issue until the Court ruled on Defendants' motion for a stay. Yesterday
evening the Court issued an order thoroughly rejecting the League's arguments and denying the stay
motion ("Stay Order"). Further, Plaintiffs do not consider the NFL Defendants' application to the 8th
Circuit as a basis for continued non-compliance with the Injunction Order, and would view any attempt
in this regard as just another form of self-help undertaken by the League. Plaintiffs are willing to wait
no longer for the League to comply with the Injunction Order.

Moreover, any attempt by the League to claim that the Injunction Order is unclear in anyway would be
completely baseless. Indeed, in a letter to the Court opposing Plaintiffs' request for clarification of the
Injunction Order, the NFL Defendants expressly stated: "We believe that the prescriptive language of
the Court's Order 'The lockout is enjoined' - coupled with the Opinion that precedes that language,
provides sufficient guidance of the Court's directions." As a result, Plaintiffs stated that they were
content to withdraw their request for clarification given the NFL Defendants' concession that the NFL
Defendants understood their obligations.

As Judge Nelson recognized in the Stay Order, the NFL Defendants have undertaken numerous steps to
prepare for resumption of operations. See Stay Order at 11-12. The Court therefore rejected the NFL
Defendants' argument that they are "unprepared to resume business operations and to conduct typical

Appellate Case: 11-1898 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2011 Entry ID: 3781827
 I I. Levy Well, Gotshal & Manges LLP
(re
April 2, 2011
Iigc 2

off-season activities." M. at 12. There is simply no reason that the NFL Defendants should be unable to
lift the lockout and comply with the Injunction Order forthwith.

The League has alre:idy delayed complying with the Injunction Order without any basis for long enough.
Please confirm that the League will commence 2011 league operations with immediate effect, including
the opening of the ftce agent signing period and the provision of player access to team workout facilities
and personnel. Failure by the NFL Defendants to comply with the Injunction Order is grounds for
contempt, and the Plaintiffs will pursue appropriate remedies.

Sincerely,

Janies W. Quinn

cc: DeMaurice Smith

Jeffrey L. Kessler
NFLPA Board of Player Directors
NFLPA Executive Committee

Appellate Case: 11-1898 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2011 Entry ID: 3781827