Connecticut Department of Banking (DOB) officials have withdrawn an appeal of a Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) decision ordering the agency to turn over records in a dispute over a statutory exemption for confidential banking records.
At issue in the case were records sought by John DiIorio, the former principal of 1st Alliance Lending, LLC, which the DOB investigated beginning in 2018 over allegations they were using unlicensed staff to process mortgage applications. The DOB revoked 1st Alliance’s license and issued a civil penalty. DiIorio maintained throughout the legal proceedings that he had done nothing wrong.
DiIorio later submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the DOB seeking email communications, including several key phrases related to the agency’s case against 1st Alliance, from a number of agency employees.
The DOB did turn over records, but cited a variety of exemptions to withhold others, including a number of records related to the 1st Alliance investigation they claimed were exempt because they contained confidential information or were related to an investigation.
State statute allows agencies to withhold confidential records, but that exemption does not apply to records relating to “publicly adjudicated disciplinary and enforcement actions” included in the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry (NMLS) and which are publicly accessible. DiIorio argued this applied to the records at issue and the FOIC agreed, finding in July 2025 that 1st Alliance was a “person” included in the NMLS for public access and the records must be turned over.
The FOIC further found DOB improperly withheld other records for which they had claimed exemptions, including by arguing that they contained confidential information that would compromise their IT systems if released.
The DOB appealed the FOIC’s ruling in the New Britain appeals court on several grounds, including that DiIorio’s appeal was filed outside the 30-day period have after a request is denied or completed. According to the DOB, that meant the FOIC did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint.
Additionally, the DOB argued the FOIC “exceeded its jurisdiction by presuming the authority to investigate the Banking Commissioner’s performance of statutory duties assigned to the Banking Commissioner” in state statute, referencing the FOIC’s finding on records publicly available in the NMLS. The DOB unsuccessfully argued before the FOIC that the commission could not review DOB decisions made under state banking law.
However, on May 8, the DOB withdrew its appeal of the FOIC’s ruling. The DOB declined to comment on the reason they dropped the complaint, but DiIorio shared a letter from the agency with Inside Investigator.
Dated May 12, the letter states that the agency’s public records officer determined the records at issue in the FOIC’s order, which the DOB had marked with “confidential” stamps were offered as unsealed evidence at an administrative hearing in the 1st Alliance case and therefore were disclosable.
“However, as in [the FOIC’s ruling], the Department of Banking’s public records officer ultimately determined that all attachment records ordered copied in [the ruling] – despite the confidential stamps – were in fact offered as unsealed exhibits during the administrative hearing. In light of that factual correction, the administrative appeal is withdrawn.” assistant attorney general John Langmaid, who represented the DOB in the case, wrote.
Langmaid further wrote that the DOB was turning over the records in an attempt to prevent further requests and FOIC challenges.
“Although the Department of Banking does not agree with the FOIC’s construction of state banking law, in hopes of forestalling additional repeated requests for copies of these same records, and sparing FOIC more exhaustive comparisons of email attachments to “records that are made public through publicly adjudicated disciplinary and enforcement actions” as to 1st Alliance Lending, LLC, copies of all “records that are made public through publicly adjudicated disciplinary and enforcement actions” are hereby being provided to you.” Langmaid wrote.
He added that, should DiIorio submit future FOIA requests to the DOB, the agency would assume that, in light of its decision to release the records named in the FOIC decision, he was not requesting identical records unless he specifically stated so.
“In light of this provision of copies of all “records that are made public through publicly adjudicated disciplinary and enforcement actions,” DOB will presume that in connection with any or future or pending requests, you are not seeking additional duplicate copies of any “records that are made public through publicly adjudicated disciplinary and enforcement actions” of 1st Alliance Leding, LLC.” Langmaid wrote, adding that DiIorio would have to specifically request duplicate records in future requests if he was seeking them.
The FOIC has repeatedly ruled that agencies still have an obligation to provide copies of records that were previously released to a requester.
DiIorio told Inside Investigator that, while DOB has dropped the appeal, the way the request was handled leaves “plenty of reasons to be concerned.”
DiIorio’s FOIA requests are also at the center of another pending court case involving the Office of Legislative Management (OLM). In arguments before the FOIC, OLM officials raised the novel legal argument that the Connecticut Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause grants legislative privilege to the office and exempts them from complying with FOIA.
The FOIC rejected the argument, but OLM has since appealed their ruling in court. Should OLM prevail, most records produced by the legislature would likely be shielded from public disclosure.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
