Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Traystman & Coric LLC

Firm Juris No. 100303 · New London County (KNO), 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: this is a motion-aggressive firm with a high grant rate before judges it appears in front of constantly. Its defining feature is volume; the record and the applicable procedural rules are what shape how that volume plays out.

How they litigate (the style)

The signature pattern is clock control + discovery pressure + fee leverage. Three numbers define it:

• 1.35 continuance markers per case (119 total; 115 of their motions are motions for continuance) — by far their single most-filed motion. The pattern is one of calendar control: stretching the timeline and keeping the case open over a long horizon.
• 1.35 discovery-pressure markers per case (119 total; 16 motions to compel) — discovery is a frequent battleground in their cases. The effect is to make the process expensive and time-consuming before the merits are reached.
• 0.97 counsel-fee markers per case (85 mentions) plus 0.83 contempt markers per case (73 total — 25 post-judgment, 24 general, 11 pendente lite) — fee requests and contempt motions appear together routinely. For a self-represented or under-resourced opponent, this is where the pressure tends to land: litigation can carry cost exposure, and contempt allegations are a recurring feature of these dockets.

Add a measurable appetite for emergency relief — 17 ex parte / TRO markers and 14 applications for emergency ex parte order of custody — and the full picture emerges: calendar control, a high volume of discovery and contempt motions, and emergency custody applications used to establish early position.

The filing barrage — and who sees the most

Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~17.1 filings on the docket per case (1,507 filings across 88 cases). The volume is not evenly distributed:

• The filing rate is higher against unrepresented opponents, not lower. Against a pro-se opponent: ~21.0 filings/case (34 cases). Against a represented opponent: ~14.7/case (54 cases). The party with the fewest resources to respond sees the heaviest paper load — a self-represented spouse faces roughly 40% more filings than one with a lawyer.
• The heaviest barrages on record: Hardison v. Hardison (KNO-FA19-5106644-S) — 62 filings (the firm's all-time high on this dataset, against a pro-se opponent); Dyjak v. Dyjak (KNO-FA20-6106181-S) — 59; Center v. Center (KNO-FA20-6106119-S) — 57, against a pro-se opponent.
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Hardison (62), Center (57), and Scanlon v. Margiotta (KNO-FA19-5106946-S) — 44 filings, each against a party with no attorney.

This is the core of the volume model: the docket itself carries the load. The data indicates that self-represented opponents see the highest filing counts — the procedural options described below are the tools available within that asymmetry.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in ~20.5% of their cases (18 of 88), and they affirmatively move for GAL appointment 15 times (69 GAL-appointment markers overall). In this firm's cases, GALs function as a custody lever more than as a neutral afterthought.
• Repeat GAL pairing: the firm repeatedly pairs with a small set of the same guardians ad litem — one recurring GAL appears in 10 of their cases. A firm and a GAL appearing together that often is itself a documentable pattern.

Information: When a GAL is proposed, a party can research the proposed name's prior pairings with this firm. A party may ask the court for a GAL from outside any recurring rotation, and the appointment order is where scope, budget, and a reporting deadline are typically defined — an unscoped GAL appointment is an open-ended cost.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Susan Connors (37 rulings) more than any other judge, then Shluger (30), Thomas (12), Newson (11), and Necci (11). A high contested-motion grant rate often correlates with familiarity — repeat appearances before the same judges mean familiarity with each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. That familiarity gap narrows for any party who learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice.

What to expect — and your procedural options

The pattern here is a high-volume, motion-heavy practice. The following points pair each documented pattern above with the procedural tool or rule that exists in that area. These are descriptions of how the tools and rules work — not instructions about any specific case.

1. The clock. Continuances are this firm's single most-filed motion (115 — about 1.35 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. Where a continuance is contested, the requesting party generally has to justify it.

1. Discovery. Discovery pressure runs at ~1.35 markers per case in this firm's history. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. Where discovery demands are excessive, a motion for protective order is the corresponding tool; a documented record of timely, complete responses is what establishes which party is in compliance.

1. Contempt. Contempt markers run at ~0.83 per case (49 contempt-type motions filed), so a contempt motion is a common feature of these dockets. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with every order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the factual record a contempt motion is decided against. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends to fail on its own terms.

1. Counsel fees. Fee requests appear at ~0.97 markers per case. Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62) — litigation conduct, including motion volume and continuances, is among the factors a court may weigh in either direction.

1. Emergency custody applications. This firm filed 14 applications for emergency ex parte orders of custody and carries 17 ex parte/TRO markers. Ex parte relief is difficult to undo once entered; a contemporaneous evidentiary record and a documented status quo are the factual materials such applications are evaluated against.

1. GAL appointments. A GAL appears in roughly one in five of their cases, and one guardian recurs in 10 cases. The proposed name's prior pairings are a matter of public record; the appointment order is where scope, budget, and a reporting deadline are set.

1. Volume and the merits. This firm's defining feature is its filing volume — and most of that volume concerns process and calendar rather than the merits. A short, merits-focused record is the structural counterweight to a high-volume docket; the substantive questions (custody, support, division) are decided on their own record regardless of how many process motions precede them.

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.