People
Diane C. Polletta

Diane C. Polletta

Counsel

Diane Polletta is a member of the firm’s Business Litigation and Corporate & Financial Litigation practices, where she represents clients in a variety of complex commercial and financial disputes in state and federal courts as well as in domestic and international arbitrations.

Diane has extensive experience with sophisticated business litigation matters, including contract disputes, business torts, shareholder litigation, partnership and corporate disputes and breaches of fiduciary duties. In addition, she handles antitrust issues, unfair trade practices claims, and complex foreclosures. Her clients include financial institutions, closely held corporations, limited liability companies and partnerships.

Prior to joining the firm, she was a law clerk to the Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut.

Credentials

Education

Yale University, J.D., 2001
Connecticut College, B.A., 1996, summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa

Bar Admissions

Connecticut
New York

Court Admissions

U.S. District Court, Southern District of NY
U.S. District Court, District of CT

Distinctions

Professional Affiliations

American Bar Association
Connecticut Bar Association

Experience

Business tort/commercial litigation

Awarded Summary Judgment in High Stakes Case for Global Technology Research and Advisory Firm

Awarded summary judgment, affirmed by a unanimous decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court, on behalf of a global technology research firm who was sued for defamation and unfair trade practices. The plaintiff alleged, in substance, that statements made by our client in a research report were defamatory and motivated by a “pay-to-play” business model which rewarded vendors who purchased substantial services from our client and punished those who did not. After the trial court granted our motion for summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit, the plaintiff appealed. The Connecticut Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, holding that the statements in the report were non-actionable expressions of opinion, and that no credible evidence existed to support the pay-to-play argument made by the plaintiff.