Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Debra Beth Marino
Firm Juris No. 411419 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (40 contested cases) — treat rates as indicative, not definitive.
What this is. A data-driven scouting report on how this firm litigates contested divorce and custody cases. Every number below is computed from the firm's own filing history across the public CT family-court docket. This is a litigation-pattern analysis of public records — not legal advice, and not a claim about any individual case. Patterns describe tendencies, not guarantees.
This is general information about public litigation patterns — not legal advice, and not a recommendation about what to do in any specific case.
Snapshot
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 40 | A focused, single-attorney practice |
| Home turf | New Haven (NNH): 28, then Bridgeport (FBT): 12 | New Haven is their primary court |
| Side they take | 29 plaintiff / 11 defendant | Files first the large majority of the time |
| Motions per case | 7.05 (282 total) | A motion-heavy practice |
| Contested-motion grant rate | ~90% (60 granted vs 7 denied, 67 decided) | Among motions with a recorded outcome, most are granted |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Jane Grossman (32), then Goodrow (24), Kenefick (13) | Frequent appearances before the NNH bench |
Bottom line: a motion-aggressive, discovery-heavy practice with a high recorded grant rate before judges it appears before frequently. The firm's filing volume is its defining feature.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is discovery pressure + clock control + fee leverage. Three numbers define them:
- 1.85 discovery motions per case (74 total) — discovery is a central focus of this firm's practice. The volume tends to make the process lengthy and resource-intensive before a matter reaches the merits.
- 1.8 continuances per case (72 total; 71 motions for continuance, their single most-filed motion) — a pattern of extended timelines.
- 1.3 counsel-fee requests per case (52 mentions) — counsel-fee requests are a recurring feature of this firm's filings. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, fee exposure is a notable factor in this firm's cases.
Add 0.875 contempt motions per case (35 total) and the pattern is complete: substantial discovery and continuance activity, a contempt-motion record, and recurring fee requests are the recurring elements across this firm's contested matters.
The filing barrage — and who sees it most
Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~25.7 filings on the docket per case (1,028 total). The volume is not evenly distributed:
- Represented opponents see slightly more paper: 26.96 filings/case against a represented opponent versus 22.75/case against a self-represented one. The difference is modest — 22.75 filings is still a substantial volume, and the heaviest single cases on record include pro-se opponents.
- The heaviest filing volumes on record: Bellucci v. Bellucci (NNH-FA19-6088372-S) — 56 filings (the firm's high on this sample); DeLucia v. DeLucia (NNH-FA20-6108168-S) — 54; Hurley v. Hurley (NNH-FA21-6111672-S) — 54; Gallant v. Gallant (NNH-FA16-6065451-S) — 46.
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Ahlgrim v. Ahlgrim (NNH-FA18-6083841-S) — 46 filings (opponent pro se); Spinner v. Spinner (NNH-FA17-6072299-S) — 35 (opponent pro se); Keefe v. Keefe (NNH-FA18-6076804-S) — 29 (opponent pro se). Dozens of filings in matters where the opponent had no attorney.
This filing volume is the core of how this firm's cases tend to unfold. A self-represented party in a matter against this firm can generally expect a sustained filing load; the section below describes the procedural tools and patterns relevant to that situation.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 71 | Affects the case timeline |
| Motion for Order | 30 | General-purpose / agenda-setting |
| Motion to Compel | 17 | Discovery enforcement |
| Objection to Motion | 16 | Opposes the other side's motions on the record |
| Objection | 14 | Same — keeps the other side responding |
| Motion for Support | 13 | Sets the financial baseline early |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 12 | Brings a third decision-maker into custody matters |
| Motion for Protective Order | 9 | Shields their client's disclosure while seeking the opponent's |
| Motion for Contempt PL | 9 | Places the opponent in a responding posture; builds a compliance record |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 20% of their cases (8 of 40), and they affirmatively move for GAL appointment 12 times (0.725 GAL-appointment markers per case). GALs feature as a custody-related lever in this firm's practice.
- Repeat pairing: the firm repeatedly pairs with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (one recurring GAL appears in 3 of these cases). When a firm and a GAL appear together repeatedly, that recurrence is part of the public record.
Information on GAL procedure: When a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are a matter of public docket record. A party may raise the selection of a GAL, and the scope, budget, and reporting deadlines of a GAL appointment are matters that the appointment order can address. An unscoped GAL appointment is open-ended in both cost and duration.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Jane Grossman (32) more than any other judge, then Hon. Karen Goodrow (24), Hon. James Kenefick (13), then Murphy, Price-Boreland, Adelman, Griffin, and Sommer. Their high grant rate is in part a function of familiarity — frequent appearances build knowledge of each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. A self-represented party who learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice narrows that familiarity gap.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This is a firm whose practice averages 7 motions per case. The information below describes the procedural tools and rules relevant to each pattern identified above. It is descriptive — what the rules and tools are, and what the pattern is — not a recommendation about any specific case.
- The discovery pattern. At 1.85 discovery motions per case (17 motions to compel on record), discovery activity is central to this firm's cases. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions and for a motion to compel. A motion for protective order is the procedural tool a party may use when discovery demands are claimed to be excessive. A documented record of timely, complete responses is what establishes which party is the compliant one, which is relevant to both sanction and fee arguments.
- The continuance pattern. Motion for continuance is this firm's single most-filed motion (71 filings; 1.8 continuances per case). A Motion to Advance is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to hear a matter sooner; continuances can be opposed on the record. These are the two procedural levers that bear on case timing.
- The contempt-motion pattern. With 0.875 contempt motions per case (35 total), contempt motions are a recurring feature of this firm's cases. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is what a court weighs against a contempt allegation. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documentary record is unlikely to succeed.
- The counsel-fee pattern. With 1.3 counsel-fee mentions per case, fee requests are a recurring feature of this firm's filings. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Motion volume and continuances are part of the public docket record and are among the factors a court may consider in evaluating litigation conduct and the source of litigation cost.
- The GAL pattern. A GAL appears in 20% of their cases and they move for one 12 times, often pairing with a recurring guardian. The proposed GAL's prior pairings with a firm are public record; the selection of a GAL is something a party may address; and the scope, budget, and reporting deadline of a GAL appointment are matters that can be defined in the appointment order.
- The filing-volume pattern. This firm's model centers on the process — 25.7 filings per case. This firm's volume is its defining feature. A focused, merits-oriented record (custody, support, division) is a different posture from a volume-oriented one; the number of filings a party makes and the substance of those filings are distinct considerations.
Methodology & limits
Computed from public CT Judicial Branch docket entries and party rosters (parties → filing-side attribution → motion/outcome tally). "Grant rate" = Granted ÷ (Granted + Denied) on the firm's own filed motions where the docket records an outcome; many entries record no outcome and are excluded, and the decided-motion sample here is small enough to treat as indicative only. Marker counts use keyword matching on docket event descriptions and may include related sub-types. Firm-name aggregation follows the docket's recorded firm name (the source truncates long names). Patterns reflect aggregate history, not the conduct of any one attorney or the merits of any one case.