BISMARCK, N.D. — Greenpeace has requested a North Dakota judge to lower the nearly $667 million damage award granted to the developers of the Dakota Access Pipeline, arguing that the sum is excessive and unwarranted. The request comes after a Morton County jury decided the environmental organization was responsible for damages caused during protests in 2016 and 2017, along with defamation claims against Energy Transfer.
Following a trial that lasted over three weeks, the jury determined that Greenpeace, alongside other activist groups, played a significant role in the protests that drew thousands to support the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The jury linked the damages to the organization’s actions and statements that reportedly harmed Energy Transfer’s business.
Greenpeace has denied the charges, suggesting that the lawsuit was an attempt to suppress environmental activism. The organization has yet to file an appeal. In the meantime, its legal team has filed a motion with Judge James Gion of the Southwest Judicial District, asking for a reduction of the damages based on claims that they exceed state statutory limits and lack consistency.
Steven Caplow, an attorney for Greenpeace, contended during a recent virtual hearing that the case exemplifies the need for judicial intervention. He pointed out that under North Dakota law, punitive damages are capped at twice the amount of compensatory damages, a guideline he believes the jury’s award does not adhere to.
Energy Transfer, however, is pushing for the jury’s decision to remain in effect, with attorney Trey Cox asserting that the damages align with both the evidence presented during the trial and the state’s legal framework. The dispute centers on whether the awarded damages comply with the punitive threshold set by state law.
The legal teams are at odds over financial responsibility, with Greenpeace maintaining that the jury attributed costs that should be assigned to Energy Transfer or other participants. Caplow argued that Greenpeace had only a minor presence at the protests and should not be held accountable for actions taken by other groups involved. He emphasized that the damages included expenses Energy Transfer incurred prior to Greenpeace’s participation.
Compounding the dispute, Caplow pointed out issues with the jury instructions and forms provided, which he claims failed to allow jurors to properly assess the degrees of responsibility among the various parties involved. He contended that jurors were not offered the opportunity to specify the extent to which Greenpeace was liable for the damages awarded.
On the other hand, Cox noted that Greenpeace had the chance to suggest changes to the jury form but opted not to do so. In addition to challenging the magnitude of the award, Greenpeace is also seeking the removal of hundreds of millions related to defamation claims, arguing that the evidence does not support the verdict.
The environmental group asserts that many of the statements in question originated from sources other than itself, including the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and were widely shared before Greenpeace made its own remarks about the pipeline. They contend that the damages also incorrectly cover claims Energy Transfer did not formally pursue.
The jury had found three Greenpeace entities liable: Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International, and Greenpeace Fund. While Greenpeace USA was held accountable for most of the charges, the other two organizations were linked to defamation and interference with Energy Transfer’s business operations.
Matt Kelly, an attorney for Greenpeace Fund, argued that the substantial award against the organization was unjustified given that it was not found at fault for major claims. He expressed frustration over the lengthy litigation over liabilities that did not apply to the organization.
During the hearing, Greenpeace International similarly contested the nearly $132 million awarded against it. Energy Transfer maintains that the awards are justified as the jury held both entities accountable for interfering with business operations.
Judge Gion has taken the motion under advisement, and additional hearings are set for later this month. Greenpeace USA has also announced plans to appeal the jury’s verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.