Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Christopher David Storm

Firm Juris No. 302071 · New Britain (HHB) area, 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

Bottom line: a New-Britain-centered firm that files heavily on discovery and wins most contested motions the docket scores. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the record and procedure are where the substance of a case is tested.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature is discovery pressure + a steady continuance habit + fee leverage. Three numbers define them:

• 3.0 discovery motions per case (198 total) — discovery is the main battlefield. The pattern tends to make the process expensive and time-consuming before the merits are reached. With 18.74 total filings per case, more than four out of every five filings tie back to a discovery push of some kind.
• 0.80 counsel-fee requests per case (53 mentions) — they regularly ask the court to consider fee awards against the other side. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is a notable cost dimension of the litigation.
• 1.23 continuances per case (81 total — the second-most-used marker after discovery) — they are comfortable stretching the timeline. Combined with 0.53 contempt motions per case (35 total), the observable pattern is: activity on discovery, a moving clock, and contempt motions that place the opposing party on the defensive.

The filing volume — and who sees the most

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~18.7 filings on the docket per case — a heavy paper load by family-court standards.

• The load is essentially the same whether or not the opponent has a lawyer. Against a pro-se opponent: 18.35 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 18.95/case. In other words, being self-represented does not correlate with a lighter docket; the volume is comparable to what a represented opponent faces, but without counsel to absorb it.
• The highest filing volumes on record: Putnam v. Putnam (HHB-FA20-6058011-S) — 72 filings (the firm's all-time high here); Ortiz v. Cordova (HHB-FA22-6075306-S) — 67 filings, opponent pro se; Brown v. Brown (HHB-FA17-5018147-S) — 45.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Ortiz v. Cordova — 67 filings (pro se); Betti v. Betti (HHB-FA16-5017741-S) — 42 filings (pro se); Hannon v. Hannon (HHB-FA16-5017166-S) — 28 filings (pro se). Dozens of filings appear in cases where the opposing party had no attorney.

This high filing volume is the defining feature of the practice; the docket itself carries much of the litigation pressure. The volume against self-represented opponents tracks closely with the volume against represented ones. The section below describes the procedural tools and rules that are relevant to this kind of motion-active practice.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in roughly 6.1% of their cases (4 of 66) — a relatively modest rate, and the firm moves for GAL appointment in only a handful of cases. GALs are not a routine feature of this practice; when one shows up, it tends to be in a genuinely contested custody fight (note the 7 ex parte emergency custody applications in the motion table).
• No recurring firm-and-GAL pairing is reportable from this record. There is no standing rotation evident in the data; any proposed GAL stands on its own record.

What the rules provide: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed person's prior record is a matter of public docket history. An appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL appointment leaves cost and duration open-ended. These are features of how GAL appointments are framed, not a directive about any case.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Barry Armata (34) far more than any other judge, then Dolan (18), Abery-Wetstone (14), Carbonneau (13), and Connors (13). Their ~87% contested-motion win rate is partly familiarity — a small New Britain bench whose preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice they know well. A self-represented opponent's familiarity with the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is one variable that the data suggests narrows that gap.

What to expect — and your procedural options

For a discovery-driven, ~4-motions-per-case firm, the following describes the patterns above and the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each. This is descriptive information, not a recommendation about any case.

1. The discovery volume. Discovery is the engine of this practice — 3.0 discovery motions per case (198 total). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. A protective-order motion is the procedural tool available to a party who believes a discovery demand is overbroad. The discovery record — what was requested, what was produced, and when — is part of the docket that a court can review.

1. The contempt motions. Contempt motions appear in better than half of their cases (35 total — 15 post-judgment, 10 pendente lite). Contemporaneous proof of compliance with court orders (payments, exchanges, communications) is the kind of documentation a court weighs when a contempt motion is contested. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends to fail on the record.

1. The fee leverage. They raise counsel fees in roughly four of every five cases (53 mentions). 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 bears on a fee analysis under that statute.

1. The continuances. Continuances are their second-most-used tool — 81 total, ~1.23 per case, and their single most-filed motion type (80). 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. Each requested continuance is a matter the court can be asked to evaluate.

1. The ex parte custody applications. They have filed 7 emergency ex parte custody applications. An ex parte order is granted without the other side being heard; the order sets a return-date hearing at which both sides appear. That return-date hearing is the procedural point at which the allegations are tested on a full record.

1. The overall volume. The model centers on the process — note the near-identical filing load whether the opponent has counsel or not (18.35 pro se vs 18.95 represented). This firm's volume is its defining feature. A short, merits-focused record is a different posture from a high-volume one; 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.