Berrigan added: "As for the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, Vilma makes the conclusory statement that, 'Goodell's statements and conduct were extreme were outrageous.' ... He makes no further allegation in support. As a public figure, Vilma has the burden of show that Goodell made the statements with 'actual malice' under both Louisiana and New York law. ... Vilma alleges that the suspension and the appeal were so procedurally flawed that no reasonable person could have believed the statements were true. "However, the statements themselves indicate that they were based on an extensive investigation. ... While the Court is extremely disturbed by the fundamental lack of due process in Goodell's denying the players the identities of and the right to confront their accusers, that was substantially rectified later in the process. So while the process was initially procedurally flawed, the statements were ultimately found to have enough support to defeat the defamation claims."