Innes v. Board of Regents of the University System of Maryland, 121 F. Supp. 3d 504

Plaintiffs are three deaf or hard-of-hearing spectators who sued the University of Maryland and its Board of Regents under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, alleging ineffective communication at Byrd Stadium and the Comcast (Xfinity) Center and on UMTerps.com.
At summary judgment the court denied both parties’ motions, finding factual disputes about liability and remedies; Defendants then installed ribbon boards with live captioning after suit was filed.
Defendants moved for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), arguing lack of standing, mootness, undue burden (costs of boards and captioning), statute-of-limitations bar for older incidents, and waiver of web damages.
University submitted an affidavit describing ribbon boards and costs for live captioning services provided by Home Team Captions ($565/game football; $325/game basketball), and asserted the boards will remain in service.
Plaintiffs maintain (1) standing is measured at filing, (2) the case is not moot because Defendants could discontinue captioning and because captioning’s effectiveness is disputed, and (3) factual disputes remain on undue burden and timeliness.
The court denied Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, finding Defendants failed the heavy burden to show mootness or that reconsideration was warranted on standing, undue burden, statute-of-limitations, or waiver grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to seek injunctive/declaratory relief	Standing existed at filing because plaintiffs then lacked access to aural content and continued to attend games	Installation of ribbon boards cures injury, so plaintiffs now lack standing	Denied—standing measured at commencement; plaintiffs had standing at filing
Mootness of stadium claims	Case remains live: captioning may be discontinued and effectiveness is disputed	Voluntary cessation and capital expenditure render claims moot	Denied—defendants failed heavy burden to show no reasonable expectation of recurrence and effects not irrevocably eradicated
Undue burden (cost of boards and captioning)	Requested line-of-sight captioning may not be unduly burdensome; factual dispute on costs/relative burden	$3.75M capital cost plus recurring per-game captioning costs establish undue burden as matter of law	Denied—cost alone not dispositive; genuine factual disputes remain on undue burden
Statute of limitations for stadium claims	Claims involve recurring discrete failures to accommodate; limitations may reset with each event	Older incidents pre-September 24, 2010 are time-barred	Denied—court previously found continuing violation theory plausible; defendants must prove timeliness by preponderance

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact at commencement of suit)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (standing assessed at filing)
County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (voluntary cessation and mootness standards)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (discrete acts versus continuing violations for limitations)
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (each discrete discriminatory act starts a new limitations clock)
Reyazuddin v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 789 F.3d 407 (cost is relevant to undue burden but not dispositive; relative cost and other factors matter)
Feldman v. Pro Football, Inc., 579 F. Supp. 2d 697 (standing and mootness analysis in ADA captioning context)