It isn't a legal issue, but first I do want to say that "splitting the baby" is a very old figure of speech, and I imagine it just came out inadvertently. It has to do with trying to give something to both sides and it not really working so well. I have to say, I once almost used it once in posting about the court's initial decision to allow the case to go forward but only allow discovery through written interrogatories to Casey A. I didn't, because I read this board, and had time to reflect on the potential to offend. I don't think any offense was intended, and splitting hairs is a different thing.
What happened today is really a non-event in a civil case. Amendments to an initial pleading are not rare. It is usually only after a certain amount of time has passed that permission of the court to amend is even required. It is an intentional tort that is alleged, and punitive damages are potentially available in such cases as a matter of law, so there we have it. Routine, routine, routine, unless you expect special rules for matters involving the A's.
As far as dismissal at the pleading stage, it was also unlikely. There are conceivably facts that support the claim, discovery is barely begun, so it would be premature to rule against the plaintiff as a matter of law. As of now, the case is going to the jury, the decider of the facts. Again, nothing unusual. The defense attorney is big on delivering attitude, but not so much on viable legal arguments. You can't resist all discovery from the person with firsthand knowledge of the facts and expect to get the case dismissed at this point because the other side doesn't have all the facts.
That said, maybe now that the defendant is facing the death penalty, the court will decide to postpone the case until after the criminal case is over. I only raise the possibility because he said the facts are "different on the ground" now than they were the first time he ruled.
If I had to read between the lines, I also would guess the court is not pleased with the approach the defense took to answering the interrogatories. They continue to stand up and discuss what Casey told the police about ZG, what the facts allegedly are, but wouldn't answer under oath on the same subject matter. The court did mention his expectation of "good faith" in responding to his previous ruling. How much can we expect this very mannerly judge will like the deposition behavior of the A's, in regard to that motion to compel? Anyway, just some impressions. This was a very expectable outcome, IMO.