New court documents will reveal how the family of former Carlton boss Luke Sayers was torn apart by three weeks of media frenzy after the 'd*** pic' scandal erupted while they were on holiday in Italy.

A new Supreme Court of Victoria order has laid bare exactly what investigators, lawyers and now the courts believe is the critical window at the heart of the Sayers legal battle. 

That window is a tight 23-day stretch between January 8 and 31 last year when the scandal rocked the AFL and filled news bulletins across the country.

In the wake of the furore, Sayers' estranged wife Cate launched defamation action against her husband in the Supreme Court of Victoria. 

Cate accused Sayers of defaming her, breaching confidence, and committing a 'common law tort of invasion of privacy' through the publication of a statutory declaration when he tried to clear his name over the pic. 

She claims the AFL colluded with the businessman and Carlton to exonerate him from allegations related to the photograph. 

Fresh orders handed down by Justice Andrew Watson, signed on June 22, reveal that almost every category of document being fought over in the case had been narrowed down to that same three-week period - the exact window in which Sayers resigned as Carlton Football Club president.  

Carlton, the AFL, Julie Trainor - executive manager of Tenet Advisory, the firm Luke Sayers founded after leaving PwC Australia - and Sharon McCrohan, the AFL's executive general manager of corporate affairs who was an adviser to the former PwC Australia chief executive, have now been ordered to hand over documents.

Both women have been ordered to produce personal correspondence and records from the same January 2025 window, specifically anything relating to the 'republication, dissemination or repetition' of a statutory declaration at the centre of the case.

Sayers had initially objected to all four subpoenas in May 2026, but the new order shows the parties have now reached a negotiated compromise - by consent - over exactly what must be handed over.

Under the order, the AFL was directed to file its own itemised schedule listing any documents it wanted to withhold from the case on the grounds of legal privilege, separate to any privilege claim made by Sayers himself.

The AFL has reserved the right to argue that some material from its integrity unit investigation should stay confidential even from the court process. 

Should Cate wish to challenge that, she has until July 27 to file submissions contesting the AFL's privilege claim.

Any dispute over that claim will be argued at a hearing set down for August.

The same fight applies to Sayers himself, who has been ordered to sort every subpoenaed document into 'privileged,' 'non-privileged' and 'extraneous' bundles, with any privilege claim he makes to be argued via submissions due next week. 

The legal drama is set to drag out until November and beyond, with a timeline suggesting witnesses won't be nailed down until the end of October. 

The ongoing saga will continue to play out in full view of the public after Sayers lost a legal challenge to have it buried in the secretive Federal Court. 

Sayers had challenged the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, arguing it ought to be moved to the Federal Circuit and Family Court where the trial would proceed before a judge and not a jury. 

But Justice Watson threw out Sayers’ application to transfer the matter last month.

Justice Watson ruled it was 'not in the interests of justice to transfer the proceeding'.

'It is not more appropriate that the proceeding in this Court be determined by the Family Court,' Justice Watson said.

Justice Watson said the trial of a defamation proceeding would ordinarily be heard in public.

The decision paves the way for intense public and media scrutiny when the matter reaches trial. 

Two of Sayers’ four daughters issued a statement in January supporting their father, saying the dispute between their parents was part of a long and complicated family history. 

The statement was issued by the same public relations firm representing their father.

Sayers denied he was responsible for the post on January 8 last year that included a picture of a penis and tagged a female executive at health insurer Bupa, a Carlton sponsor.

The post was quickly removed. In filings to the court, Sayers argued his X account was managed by his personal assistant and that he did not operate or manage his social media accounts.

Cate alleges Sayers told the AFL his wife had 'accessed Luke’s X account without his knowledge or authority and posted a photograph of Luke’s penis on his X account'.

He is also alleged to have said: 'Cate suffers from mental illness (including bipolar and multi-personality disorder) and has been prescribed medication by her doctors which she periodically refuses to take.'

The AFL cleared Sayers and closed the investigation almost immediately after he provided a statutory declaration to the commission.

He resigned as president of Carlton shortly after.

The AFL did not interview Cate despite the integrity unit determining she was a 'person relevant' to the matter.

Carlton launched its own inquiries, but promptly closed the matter after Sayers resigned.