This story was originally published by the North Dakota Monitor.
Mary Steurer
North Dakota Monitor
A North Dakota judge rejected a request from the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline to pause a free speech lawsuit filed against it overseas by the environmental group Greenpeace.
The Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International brought the case in response to Energy Transfer’s lawsuit accusing it of engaging in conspiracy, defamation and other crimes to stop the pipeline from being built. That lawsuit, pending in North Dakota district court, was also filed against two other Greenpeace entities: Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund.
Greenpeace denies all of Energy Transfer’s allegations and says the pipeline company’s true motivation for bringing the suit is to punish and intimidate the activists who participated in the Indigenous-led protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017. In this vein, Greenpeace International in early February counter-sued Energy Transfer in the Netherlands under a European Union directive that provides recourse to those targeted by frivolous lawsuits for exercising their free speech.
Greenpeace International in the Dutch case accuses the energy company of abusing the legal system to waste its time and money and of making defamatory statements about the environmental group. It ultimately wants the Netherlands to order Energy Transfer to award it monetary damages.
The Dutch lawsuit was filed shortly before the North Dakota case against Greenpeace went to trial. After sitting through more than three weeks of testimony from dozens of witnesses, a Morton County jury in March found the environmental group at fault for more than $660 million.
Greenpeace has indicated it will appeal the decision if it’s allowed to stand, though Southwest Judicial District Judge James Gion has yet to enter a judgment in the case.
Energy Transfer says that Greenpeace International’s lawsuit in the Netherlands is an unlawful attempt to overturn its unfavorable ruling in North Dakota. It asked Gion in July to order that Greenpeace put the Dutch case on hold until its own lawsuit wraps up, arguing Greenpeace’s overseas litigation threatens to undermine the jury’s findings.
Gion on Tuesday denied the request.
He wrote that while the subject matter of the two lawsuits overlap, the fundamental legal claims they consider are different. For that reason, Gion said the Dutch case is not an attempt to relitigate the North Dakota lawsuit.
He also said it’s unlikely that the Netherlands court would act quickly enough to affect anything in the North Dakota case.
“Admittedly this court has no familiarity with the civil procedure in the Netherlands, and therefore, no idea how quickly the Dutch court moves on civil matters,” he added.
Gion has yet to enter a judgment following the jury’s verdict. Greenpeace has requested that he overturn the decision or reduce the $660 million award.
Gion wrote in his Tuesday opinion he expects to rule on those issues within the next week or so.
He also noted that attorneys for Energy Transfer previously indicated that if he did not halt the Dutch case, they may appeal his decision to the North Dakota Supreme Court.