Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Law Office of Daniel D Portanova P.C.
Firm Juris No. 407838 · Bridgeport, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
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) | 60 | A steady-volume contested-divorce practice |
| Home turf | Bridgeport (FBT): 51, then New Haven (4), Danbury (2), Stamford (2) | Bridgeport is overwhelmingly their court |
| Side they take | 30 plaintiff / 30 defendant | An even split — equally comfortable filing first or defending |
| Motions per case | 9.6 | A motion-heavy, attrition style |
| Contested-motion win rate | 66% (78 granted vs 40 denied) | When the firm files a contested motion that reaches an outcome, it is granted about two-thirds of the time |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Jane Grossman (26), then Adelman (21), Hartley Moore (13) | A practice that appears before the FBT bench frequently |
Bottom line: a Bridgeport-centered, motion-aggressive firm with a high contested-motion success rate in courts where it appears constantly. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the patterns most relevant to an opposing party tend to center on focus, the record, and procedure.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is discovery pressure + fee leverage + a steady drumbeat of contempt. Three numbers define them:
- 3.65 discovery motions per case (219 total) — discovery is the main battlefield. The pattern tends to make the process expensive and time-consuming before a case reaches the merits.
- 1.4 counsel-fee requests per case (84 mentions; 11 fee motions pendente lite) — the firm routinely asks the court to make the other side pay its fees. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a notable cost exposure.
- 1.0 contempt motions per case (62 total — 17 post-judgment, 14 pendente lite, 10 general) — contempt is used as a standing tool rather than a last resort. A contempt motion alleges violation of a court order.
Add 1.8 continuances per case (107) and the full picture emerges: an extended timeline, sustained discovery and contempt activity, and ongoing fee accrual.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~29.8 filings on the docket per case. And the volume tilts toward the unrepresented:
- The firm files more against unrepresented opponents, not less. Against a pro-se opponent: 31.4 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 28.9/case. The party least equipped to respond receives the heavier paper load.
- The heaviest barrages on record: Martinelli v. Martinelli (FBT-FA15-6053399-S) — 124 filings, against a pro-se opponent; Grasso v. Grasso (FBT-FA05-4009030-S) — 98; Britto v. Britto Jr. (FBT-FA12-4039507-S) — 98; Birkhold v. Birkhold (FBT-FA08-4026983-S) — 93.
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Martinelli v. Martinelli (FBT-FA15-6053399-S) — 124 filings; Philbin v. Boccanfuso (FBT-FA15-6052963-S) — 75 filings; Esposito v. Dortenzio (FBT-FA15-5030321-S) — 56 filings — all against opponents with no attorney.
This is the core of the attrition pattern: the docket itself becomes the dominant feature of the case. The data indicate that self-represented opponents are the profile that draws the highest filing volume.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 101 | Controls the clock |
| Motion for Order | 93 | General-purpose, agenda-setting motion |
| Objection to Motion | 44 | Frequently contests the opponent's moves |
| Objection | 35 | More of the same — contests the opponent's record |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 17 | Puts the opponent on defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Alimony Pendente Lite | 17 | Locks in support early |
| Motion to Compel | 16 | A common discovery motion — often an opening move |
| Motion for Contempt Pendente Lite | 14 | Early pressure on compliance |
| Motion for Protective Order | 13 | Shields their client's disclosure while seeking the opponent's |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 10% of their cases (6 of 60) — a modest rate, with 42 GAL-appointment-related entries on the docket. GALs are not a centerpiece of this firm's playbook, but when a custody fight escalates, a move to bring one in is more likely.
- The records do not show this firm leaning on any one recurring guardian ad litem.
Context: When a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are a matter of public docket record. An appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment leaves cost and duration open-ended.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Jane Grossman (26 rulings) more than any other judge, then Adelman (21), Hartley Moore (13), Owens (12), and Truglia (12). The firm's 66% contested-motion win rate is partly a function of familiarity — a practice that appears before the same judges learns their preferences, calendar habits, and motion-practice expectations. That familiarity is something a self-represented opponent does not start with; an assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice are public.
What to expect — and your procedural options
Against a ~10-motions-per-case attrition firm, the procedural tools and rules below correspond to specific patterns in the data above. This section describes what each tool is and what the pattern is — it is not a recommendation about any case.
- Discovery. With 3.65 discovery motions per case, discovery is this firm's main battlefield. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. A motion for protective order is the procedural tool a party may use to limit discovery demands that are overbroad or unduly burdensome. A complete, contemporaneously documented discovery record is what establishes which party complied.
- Contempt. With roughly one contempt motion per case (62 total), a contempt motion is a recurring feature of this firm's practice. A contempt motion alleges violation of a court order; contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the kind of record that bears on whether such a motion succeeds. A contempt motion that is contradicted by the documents does not establish the violation it alleges.
- Fees. With 1.4 fee requests per case, the firm frequently asks courts to shift fees. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's own motion volume and continuances are part of the litigation-conduct record that a court may consider on a fee question.
- Continuances and the clock. The firm averages 1.8 continuances per case (101 motions for continuance — its single most-filed motion). A continuance can be opposed on the record. A Motion to Advance is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to hear a matter sooner. Each continuance is a request the court can grant or deny.
- Filing volume against self-represented parties. Pro-se opponents draw 31.4 filings per case versus 28.9 against represented ones, and the heaviest dockets on record (124, 75, and 56 filings) were all against unrepresented opponents. A filing log, a calendar of deadlines, and template responses are the kinds of organizational systems that keep filing volume manageable for a self-represented party.
- The merits. This firm's volume is its defining feature, and much of that volume concerns the process rather than the merits. A short, documented, merits-focused record is the counterpart to a high-volume process record; the substantive questions in a family case (custody, support, division) are decided on the merits regardless of filing count.
Methodology & limits
Computed from public CT Judicial Branch docket entries and party rosters (parties → filing-side attribution → motion/outcome tally). "Win 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. 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.