Bourque v. United States of America Department of State

Background

The case challenges defendants’ increase of the expedited passport-application processing fee from $35 to $60 in 2002 and their continued assessment of that fee. Plaintiffs contend that the fee is arbitrary and improperly exceeds defendants’ costs. The parties submitted a joint letter about two disputed discovery search queries.

Query No. 8

Query No. 8 sought documents related to a September 2017 Office of Inspector General report about the Bureau of Consular Affairs’ fee-setting methodology for selected consular services. The audit did not include expedited passport-processing fees within its audit scope. It nevertheless found that the State Department recovered more than the full cost of providing consular services in each year studied and identified problems involving the agency’s cost model, treatment of carry-forward balances, historical data, documentation, and quality control.

Defendants argued that the report was not relevant because the agency committed in 2017 to adopting most of the report’s recommendations and used a new model beginning in fiscal year 2018, while the class period began in fiscal year 2019. The court concluded that the agency’s methodology changes could bear on the reasonableness of leaving the expedited fee unchanged since 2002. The court also found that defendants had not shown a specific undue burden or prejudice from running the search.

Query No. 9

Query No. 9 sought documents related to an April 2022 Government Accountability Office report concerning whether the State Department could cover projected costs if revenues did not quickly return to pre-pandemic levels. The report analyzed projected costs and revenue, including revenue from the expedited passport fee. It also discussed how the State Department used that revenue and identified documentation concerns involving the agency’s general cost model.

The court found that the report’s treatment of expedited-fee revenue, cost modeling, and documentation had sufficient potential relevance to justify discovery without a specific showing of undue burden or prejudice.

Ruling

The court ordered defendants to search for documents using Query No. 8 and Query No. 9 and produce the resulting discoverable documents in response to plaintiffs’ requests for production no later than January 9, 2026. Magistrate Judge Harry A. Cisneros issued the order resolving the joint letter.