Attorneys for Greenpeace have requested sanctions against Energy Transfer, the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), in a North Dakota civil lawsuit. The environmental group alleges that Energy Transfer has failed to provide crucial safety records, which they argue are essential for their defense against claims of reputational harm.
Key Takeaways
- Greenpeace seeks sanctions against Energy Transfer for not providing safety records.
- Energy Transfer claims to have complied with record requests but disputes the necessity of further documents.
- The lawsuit stems from protests against DAPL, which began in 2016.
Background of the Lawsuit
In 2019, Energy Transfer filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace, accusing the organization of criminal conduct and spreading false information about the pipeline. The company claims that Greenpeace’s actions have resulted in significant financial losses, including damage to its reputation and relationships with financial institutions.
Thousands of activists protested against DAPL, particularly in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which opposes the pipeline due to concerns over water contamination and sovereignty violations.
Document Dispute
Greenpeace has requested documents related to spills and leaks from Energy Transfer’s pipelines, including any enforcement actions taken by federal, state, or local authorities. Adam Caldwell, an attorney for Greenpeace, emphasized the importance of these records in demonstrating the alleged reputational harm suffered by Energy Transfer.
Despite obtaining six court orders compelling Energy Transfer to provide these documents, Caldwell stated that the company continues to resist compliance. He noted that Energy Transfer has not provided records related to an enforcement action by the EPA.
Energy Transfer’s Response
During a recent court hearing, Energy Transfer’s attorney, Trey Cox, argued that the company has made a good faith effort to comply with record requests, having already provided over 133,000 safety documents. Cox characterized Greenpeace’s request for sanctions as extreme and unprecedented, suggesting it could jeopardize the lawsuit.
Caldwell acknowledged the volume of documents provided but criticized their relevance, likening the situation to receiving unrelated tools instead of the requested hammer. He argued that the delay in receiving pertinent documents has forced Greenpeace to seek a postponement of the trial, now scheduled for February.
Broader Implications
Greenpeace’s general counsel, Deepa Padmanabha, stated that the lawsuit represents a broader attack on advocacy organizations and the right to dissent. She emphasized the importance of protecting these rights, especially in the current climate of environmental activism.
In addition to Greenpeace, Energy Transfer is also suing two demonstrators and the Red Warrior Society, a protest group involved in the DAPL protests. The Water Protector Legal Collective has sought to join the case to access confidential documents related to pipeline safety, arguing that public interest necessitates transparency regarding safety incidents.
Conclusion
As the legal battle continues, the outcome of this case could have significant implications for environmental advocacy and the rights of organizations to challenge corporate actions. The court’s decision on Greenpeace’s request for sanctions will be closely watched, as it may set a precedent for future cases involving environmental activism and corporate accountability.
Sources
- Greenpeace seeks sanctions against DAPL developer over records in civil lawsuit • North Dakota Monitor, North Dakota Monitor.
