The Roiland DV case is very different from the depp/heard defamation case.

1: the Roiland case was about whether or not he was found to be committing DV. and it was inconclusive evidence. He might not be found guilty but he’s also not found innocent.

2: His accuser was not to be found guilty of perjury. the case was about finding evidence of DV. Not perjury of his accuser. the depp/heard case was explicitly about what heard gave to the media is what she was found guilty of.

3: Roiland and his accuser didn’t sign a non-disparagement claus. and his accuser didn’t then go talk to Washington post without any conclusive evidence on the outcome of the case. And probably a good thing roiland didn’t sign such a non-disparagement claus as he did post misinformation meant to publicly harm his accuser with that misleading Twitter post about what his case was actually about.