The court filing claims impeachment inquiry.
It does so because there's a (1, single, solitary) precedent for turning over a lot of grand jury testimony, and that was because the House' impeachment inquiry at the time could be considered to serve a "judicial" function. (Note that there's a contrast buried in there. I suspect the contrast is with "political" or "legislative".)
So the terminology is taken to matter.
However, the courts in the last couple of years have decided that motivation matters. If you want to do something that's perfectly Constitutional but for which a bad motivation can be adduced or suspected, then you're not allowed to. What you *say* your intent is matters not a whit. Of course, one judge's "that's a good motive" is another judge's "how horrible!", but we'll leave that kind of subjective, whimsical interpretation of the laws aside.
If a court decides to follow *that* particular type of precedent, then saying in a court filing "impeachment" but saying elsewhere, "nah, not really, perhaps later" would be a bad thing for the case's success.
= new reply since forum marked as read
