Instruct: Given a premise, retrieve a hypothesis that is entailed by the premise.
Query: This looks artificial when you're dealing with a fact witness, but these are fact witnesses who are also reporters, and I am straining to try to find a fair way to do this. I believe that to the extent -- and I've said this now several times -- that the reporters' testimony is necessary in order to invoke the residual hearsay exception under Rule 807, that the defendants have to have an opportunity to examine the reporters on the same topics and subjects that I would allow the plaintiffs to question them on during their case-in-chief, nothing more and nothing less.
In this particular instance defendants and plaintiffs are entitled to the same rights. 
The reporters were later forced to answer questions.
No fact witnesses are also reporters.
They have the choice to testify.
Two separate actions occurred that lead to the reporters having to testify at certain depositions.
They will maybe testify as to everything in the articles.
The interviewers are reporters.
It was not the motion, but the order that came from it that directly caused the reporters having to testify.
the reporters testimony is not necessary  
reporters cannot be fact witnesses
The statement in the article was heard by the reporters.
They can testify if they want to.
fact witnesses can not be reporters
They may be able to testify if they choose to.
The judge meant to imply fact witnesses.
Testimonies shall relate to a reporters' bias.
They have the ability to testify.
The reporters won't be called to testify.
The reporters used a tape recorder to get the statementrs.
The reporters were subpoenaed to testify less than 24 hours ago, according to this person's memory.
It is okay to ask reporters personal questions.
The reporters refused to answer under oath.
Residual hearsay exception under Rule 807 is not always invoked for reporters testimony but can always be for any other fact witness.
the plaintiffs will not be allowed to question
rule 807 is not real