Jury gets Dakota Access suit against Greenpeace

MANDAN, N.D. — A North Dakota jury began deliberating Monday on whether Greenpeace defamed a pipeline company and disrupted its controversial Dakota Access Pipeline project using what the plaintiffs argued were malicious and deceptive tactics.

Closing arguments unfolded earlier in the day in the lawsuit brought by Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access against Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. The plaintiffs alleged defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts by the Greenpeace entities to stop the pipeline.

The lawsuit is linked to protests in 2016 and 2017 against the oil pipeline and its controversial Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has long opposed the pipeline as a risk to its water supply. The pipeline has been transporting oil since mid-2017 cutting from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota, across Iowa and to a hub in Illinois.

Nine jurors and two alternates heard the case after it went to trial in late February. Their verdict will include what damages, if any, to award.

Trey Cox, an attorney for the pipeline company, said Greenpeace “acted as one enterprise to stop DAPL at all costs," referring to the pipeline's acronym. He said the environmental advocacy group exploited a small, disorganized local issue to promote its agenda, calling Greenpeace “master manipulators” and “deceptive to the core.” He asked the jury to find for the plaintiffs.

“It needs to be done for Morton County. It needs to be done for Morton County’s law enforcement and the next community where Greenpeace exploits an opportunity to push its agenda at any cost,” Cox told the jury, referring to the North Dakota county where the protests were centered.

A slide he showed the jury highlighted damages per claim totaling nearly $350 million.

Attorneys for the Greenpeace entities denied the allegations, saying Energy Transfer didn't prove its case or meet its burden to prove defamation or damages, and that Greenpeace employees had little or no presence or involvement in the protests.

“Their case just does not add up,” Greenpeace International attorney Courtney DeThomas told the jury.

Greenpeace representatives have criticized the lawsuit as an example of corporations abusing the legal system to go after critics and called it a critical test of free speech and protest rights.

An Energy Transfer spokesperson said the case is about Greenpeace not following the law, not free speech.