I'm not familiar with the concept that you shouldn't be able to take a deposition in a civil case if you can ask the same things by interrogatory. Is that some quirk of Florida law or just something BC hopes is true? I think it just stems from the court's weird split decision in regard to Casey, not totally staying discovery but not allowing a deposition because of self-incrimination concerns for a criminal defendant.
It seems the A's and their lovely daughter could stop the madness easily, though. They could just clearly and unequivocally state under oath that this Orlando ZG, with all her uncanny "coincidental" issues and similarities to the elusive nanny accused by the A's, who will likely be reaccused at trial, is ABSOLUTELY NOT the person ever referred to and they KNOW she is an innocent bystander. GA and CA and LA need to be questioned so that they can just admit that they have absolutely NO firsthand knowledge of the existence of any ZG, and certainly not this one. Despite her alleged years of association with Casey, they never saw her, spoke to her, met her, saw a message from her, knew her phone number or where she lived. They could do their spiels (like CA did with LE in that lengthy interview) in which they pass on all the garbage Casey has told them about the existence and identity of a Nanny Zanny. Cindy could throw in the alleged statements made by little Caylee about Zanny (yeah, right) and maybe her secret info about the phone call from Zanny on July 15 and the records thereof, which are in her possession, right? I saw her claim on TV that she has. I'd stop saving them for a rainy day and bring them out now, if it was me. Why would the A's not want to do this???