I interpret the order and the amended order to mean that Your Honor, in a sense, has addressed them as fact witnesses. I don't think you actually come out and use the word "fact witnesses," but as one reads the order, that's the implication. And you initially had indicated that you did not feel that the reporter's privilege stood in this kind of a case.
The judge meant to imply fact witnesses.
"Your honor" implies this is addressed to a judge, and the writer is clear that they think the judge meant to imply "fact witnesses", but, we don't see the response, if any, from the judge to tell us whether or not that is accurate. We don't know what the judge meant to imply.
( z1 mean :ARG0 ( z2 person :ARG0-of ( z3 have-org-role :ARG3 ( z4 judge ) ) ) :ARG1 ( z5 imply :ARG0 z2 :ARG1 ( z6 person :ARG0-of ( z7 witness :ARG1 ( z8 fact ) ) ) ) )