I think those who are none too pleased with the lawsuit going forward and with the attorneys taking the As' depositions, really are taking exception with the legal system. First, there are two lawsuits here: ZG vs KC, and KC v ZG. They are separate lawsuits that are proceeding together. Even if ZG dropped her lawsuit, KC's separate lawsuit against ZG would still exist. You can't sue someone and then simultaneously ask the court to stay a civil lawsuit you filed pending the outcome of your criminal trial. Actually you can, but it would fall upon deaf ears, as it apparently has here. I don't see KC dropping her own lawsuit. Secondly, the attorneys are entitled to ask witnesses questions pertaining to their defense of that lawsuit which they did here. Third, the most important part of the discovery in any action is getting the witness' testimony while it is fresh. Everyone's memory fades with time. There is no question that the criminal trial is at least a year away to begin with and will be a lengthy trial. It would not be fair to all the litigants, ZG or KC, to wait that long to obtain witness testimony. Fourth, as far as the As being witnesses, yes, initially through no fault of their own, they became witnesses. However, they also took a very active role in speaking to the media--which they did not have to do. In that role, they blamed the nanny--they blamed ZG, and very specifically, they did not exonerate this ZG in the media. The attorneys are entitled to ask about it.
If you notice, their attorney was not objecting to the questions asked. He had no grounds to do so. Finally, relevancy is not a proper objection to a deposition question. Those are the rules of civil discovery. If you don't like it, then you have to ask the legislature to change it--not slam the attorneys for doing their jobs.