AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS et al v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.
Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT by Sina Bahram (Pearlman, Jeffrey).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING
AND MATERIALS d/b/a ASTM
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION
ASSOCIATION, INC.; and
Case No. 1:13-cv-01215-TSC-DAR
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS
CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING,
REFRIGERATING, AND AIR
Action Filed: August 6, 2013
PUBLIC RESOURCE.ORG, INC.,
Sina Bahram respectfully moves for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of
Defendant in the above-captioned matter.
Mr. Bahram is a digital accessibility researcher and advocate, chief technology officer
and co-founder of the International Association of Visually Impaired Technologists (“IAVIT”).
In addition to researching human computer interaction, intelligent user interfaces, and artificial
intelligence with the goal of helping users with disabilities, Mr. Bahram advocates on behalf of
disabled individuals and organizations representing their interests. Mr. Bahram has authored
numerous publications advocating for technical solutions to accessibility challenges, see Sina
Bahram, Publications, at https://www.sinabahram.com/publications.php, and has been honored
by the White House as a “Champion of Change” for his accessibility work. See Matt Shipman,
White House Honors Sina Bahram as a “Champion of Change,” CSC News (May 7, 2012),
available at http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/news/1322; White House, Champions of Change: Sina
Bahram, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/champions/stem-equality-for-americans-withdisabilities/sina-bahram-. Additionally, Mr. Bahram serves on several boards of conferences and
organizations related to accessibility and, through his consulting service, Prime Access
Consulting, works with clients to achieve digital accessibility goals. See Sina Bahram,
Consulting, at https://www.sinabahram.com/consulting.php.
As a visually-impaired individual himself and in his capacity as an advocate for other
disabled persons, Mr. Bahram has a substantial interest in this case, which is likely to have a
profound effect on the ability of persons with disabilities to access, understand, and participate in
the development of the law. Disabled individuals like Mr. Bahram and those for whom he
advocates are acutely affected by changes in public safety or accessibility law—changes that
may, as in this case, incorporate standards crafted by standards development organizations
(“SDOs”). Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts (“SMF”) ¶¶ 13, 22. The issue has become
even more pressing for advocates as the federal government encourages agencies to forego
crafting standards themselves and incorporate those developed by SDOs. Id. ¶ 24. When SDOs
erect technological barriers to accessing these standards, they prevent millions of disabled
individuals from reading the laws that govern them. As an expert on, an advocate for, and a user
of accessibility technologies, Mr. Bahram is particularly well-positioned to explain these
problems and the potential impact of this case on disabled individuals.
As recognized by other amici, this Court has allowed amicus curiae participation when
the amicus “has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that
the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.” Jin v. Ministry of State Sec., 557 F. Supp. 2d 131,
137 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1064
(7th Cir. 1997)); Cobell v. Norton, 246 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62 (D.D.C. 2003). Too often, the needs of
disabled persons and the impact of laws on disabled persons are profoundly overlooked. In light
of Mr. Bahram’s role as an advocate and expert on the technological needs of print and visually
disabled persons, his unique perspective will help the Court understand the ways in which this
case and its outcome will affect the ability of an important and vulnerable segment of the
population to access the law and participate in its development.
The Parties have agreed that they will not oppose any amicus filing in support of either
side. See Joint Report on Proposed Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule at 14, Docket No. 114
(Oct. 30, 2015). All parties have also separately consented to the filing of the brief proposed by
DATED: January 8, 2016
Jeffrey T. Pearlman
CA Bar #254759
D.C. District Bar ID #CA00003
Phillip R. Malone (Admission Pending)
Juelsgaard IP And Innovation Clinic
Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305
Telephone: (650) 497-9443
Fax: (650) 723-4426
One or more additional parties may sign on to the brief before it is filed; Plaintiffs and
Defendant were informed of this before consent was obtained.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?