Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Savona Saunders & Tukey LLC

Firm Juris No. 436767 · New London Judicial District (KNO) · 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

Bottom line: a New London-centric firm that files first, runs a heavy continuance-and-contempt practice, and is granted most of the contested motions it brings before judges it appears before constantly. The firm's volume is its defining feature; the procedural tools and rules that respond to that volume are described below.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is GAL-and-fee activity + discovery friction + clock control. Three numbers define them:

• GAL appointment activity in 71% of cases (121 mentions; 0.71 per case) — for a firm that handles custody and dissolution work, this is a defining feature. GAL-appointment activity appears early and often, which introduces a third decision-maker into the children's case and adds a cost the parties may have to fund.
• Counsel-fee activity in 65% of cases (111 mentions; 0.65 per case), with 16 dedicated counsel-fee motions — the question of who pays is raised routinely. For a self-represented or under-resourced opposing party, this is the cost-exposure point: continued litigation can carry a fee-shifting risk.
• Discovery-motion activity in 64% of cases (109 mentions; 0.64 per case) — a substantial share of the firm's docket activity occurs in the discovery phase, which makes the process a significant source of cost and effort before the merits are reached.

Add continuance activity in 58% of cases (98 mentions) and contempt in 42% (72 mentions) and the full pattern emerges: an extended timeline, sustained fee and GAL activity, and frequent compliance disputes.

The filing barrage — and who gets it worst

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~13.2 filings on the docket per case (2,240 filings over 170 cases). The volume is not evenly distributed:

• Represented opponents see more paper, not less. Against a represented opponent: 14.3 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 12.1 filings/case. The firm's caseload is split almost evenly — 86 cases against self-represented opponents vs. 84 against represented opponents — so self-represented parties are well within this firm's typical caseload, and a dozen-plus filings is a heavy load for one person to answer.
• The heaviest barrage on record: Rubenstein v. Rubenstein (KNO-FA96-4108659-S) — 298 filings, the firm's all-time high (a long-running post-judgment matter, opponent represented).
• Heaviest barrages against self-represented opponents: Roy v. Roy (KNO-FA19-6104861-S) — 32 filings, opponent pro se; DeCosta v. DeCosta (KNO-FA21-6106680-S) — 25 filings, pro se; Kelleher v. Kelleher (KNO-FA22-6107528-S) — 24 filings, pro se; Benzing v. Marks (KNO-FA24-6110159-S) — 22 filings, pro se; Provatas v. Provatas (KNO-FA19-6104894-S) — 21 filings, pro se. Twenty-plus filings each, in cases where the opponent had no attorney.

For a self-represented party, the data shows this is a familiar profile in the firm's caseload. The procedural options that correspond to each pattern are described below.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A guardian ad litem appears in only about 2.9% of their cases (5 of 170) — so while the docket shows heavy GAL-appointment activity (motions and orders touching GAL appointment in 71% of cases), an actually-serving GAL is recorded in relatively few. The pattern: this firm frequently raises the GAL question in custody fights, even where one is not ultimately seated.
• The records do not show this firm repeatedly pairing with the same small set of guardians ad litem; GAL use here is best understood by rate, not by any recurring rotation.

Context: When a GAL is proposed, the appointment order is the document that can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline. An unscoped GAL appointment leaves the scope, cost, and duration open-ended. Given how often this firm raises the GAL question, the proposal can be understood as a recurring procedural pattern rather than a case-specific event.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Kenneth Shluger (32 rulings) more than any other judge, then Swienton (28), Connors (24), Carbonneau (17), Necci (16), Newson (13), Boland (10), and Devine (8). Their 74% contested-motion win rate reflects, in part, familiarity — a practice concentrated before a small set of judges tends to track each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. A self-represented party's information gap here narrows with knowledge of the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice, which are part of the public record.

What to expect — and your procedural options

This is a steady, motion-driven, high-volume practice. The descriptions below pair each observed pattern with the procedural tools and rules that exist within Connecticut family practice. They describe what those tools are, not what any reader should do.

1. Discovery activity. Discovery-motion activity touches 64% of their cases. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. A documented record of timely, complete responses is also what bears on which party appears compliant — a factor that can weigh on the fee analysis described below. When discovery demands are disputed, the focused objection and the protective order are the procedural mechanisms a party may use to narrow them.

1. Contempt activity. Contempt activity appears in 42% of cases, with 28 post-judgment contempt motions on the board — including matters reopened years after judgment. A contempt motion turns on documented compliance with the underlying order (payments, exchanges, communications); contemporaneous compliance records are the evidence that bears on such a motion. A contempt motion that is not supported by the record is one a court can deny.

1. Counsel-fee activity. Counsel-fee activity touches 65% of their cases. Under Connecticut law, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's documentation of the other side's motion volume and continuances is the kind of record that bears on the litigation-conduct factor in that analysis.

1. Continuances and the timeline. Continuance activity appears in 58% of cases, and Motion for Continuance is their single most-filed motion (94). 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 two mechanisms are what address timeline control within the rules.

1. The GAL question. This firm raises the GAL question in a large share of cases. When a GAL is proposed, the appointment order is where scope, budget, and a reporting deadline can be specified, and the court can require a showing of why a guardian is needed.

1. Filing volume. At ~13.2 filings per case (14.3 against represented opponents), this firm's volume is its defining feature. The procedural tools above operate independently of filing count — completeness of discovery responses, documented compliance, the fee-conduct record, the Motion to Advance, and the GAL appointment order each respond to a specific pattern rather than to total volume. A focused, merits-oriented record (custody, support, division) is one way a case's substance is kept in view regardless of how much paper is on the docket.

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.