Rule 901(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence says that when you file a document wirh a federal court you have to establish, at least prima facie, that it is what it purports to be.
There are penalties for that?
A lawyer who files a motion with a federal court without conducting sufficient investigation to determine that the facts stated are accurate can get sanctioned under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
That makes perfect sense, if the document is being submitted with the implicit or explicit claim that the document IS what it purports to be.
But does that apply when you submit a document precisely for the purpose of requesting that the court conduct an investigation of the document? It seems absurd that a lawyer could be penalized for asking a court to conduct an investigation of a document. That would appear to require that no lawyer may ask a court a question unless the lawyer has certitude that he knows the answer.