Goolden v. Wardak
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-06257
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sarah Goolden v. Hamed Wardak, Judge Figueredo directed redaction of privileged information so Sarah Goolden could access the filing.
Hamed Wardak and Sarah Goolden; the order addressed Wardak’s legal-invoice filing and Goolden’s access to it.
What happened
In Sarah Goolden v. Hamed Wardak, Hamed Wardak asked to keep unredacted legal invoices private. The invoices were connected to his request for attorney-fee reimbursement and allegedly contained confidential information about his lawyers’ work and communications.
The court directed Wardak to file the document and exhibit with redactions for privileged information at a viewing level that Sarah Goolden could access. The opinion excerpt does not say that the court granted or denied the request to keep the unredacted invoices under seal.
Judge Valerie Figueredo issued the direction on December 2, 2025. The ruling affected Wardak’s filing and Goolden’s ability to view it.
The detailed version
- Goolden v. Wardak · No. 1:19-cv-06257
- Andrew Carter
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
Hamed Wardak’s counsel submitted a letter motion concerning unredacted legal invoices connected with Wardak’s reply in support of a motion for attorney fees. The letter asked the court to keep the unredacted invoices under seal. It stated that the invoices contained confidential information about counsel’s work, including counsel’s choices and priorities, and cited decisions discussing public access to court filings and the protection of privileged information.
Court’s action
The court’s endorsement states that Wardak filed ECF No. 276 and an exhibit ex parte, meaning without access by the other side. The court directed Wardak to file ECF No. 276 and the exhibit with redactions for any privileged information at the “selected parties” viewing level so that Sarah Goolden could access them.
The excerpt does not expressly state whether the request to keep the unredacted invoices under seal was granted or denied. Accordingly, the court’s stated action is the direction to file redacted versions accessible to Goolden, not an expressly stated ruling on the sealing request.
Effect of the order
The direction concerns access to Wardak’s legal-invoice filings and the protection of privileged information. Judge Valerie Figueredo’s endorsement required a filing that Goolden could access while allowing privileged material to be redacted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.