Resolute Forest Products, Inc. v. Greenpeace International

Resolute Forest Products, Inc. (Resolute) (plaintiff) was a company that engaged in harvesting trees and manufacturing paper products for sale. Resolute was a signatory to an agreement between forestry companies and environmental organizations under which the forestry companies agreed not to log in certain areas and the environmental organizations agreed not to target the companies with negative publicity campaigns while they worked together on joint conservation efforts. However, in 2010 nonparty Greenpeace Canada published a report indicating that Resolute had violated the agreement by harvesting trees in the Montagnes Blanches. Resolute responded, indicating that this was not true, and Greenpeace Canada realized its error and provided a notice of correction in 2013. Despite this correction, Resolute alleged that in May 2013, Greenpeace, Inc. (defendant) employee Daniel Brindis (defendant) contacted Resolute’s customers and gave them Greenpeace Canada’s inaccurate 2010 report, and Greenpeace USA (defendant) posted the report on its website. This time, Quebec’s minister with oversight over forests issued a statement on May 31, 2016, indicating that the subject report used a map that was misleading, and he provided a link showing the location of the Montagnes Blanches on an official map. Despite the minister’s statement, the inaccurate report remained listed on the websites of Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International (defendant). Also, in December 2016, Greenpeace, Inc., employee Amy Moas (defendant) wrote a letter to various Resolute customers, accusing Resolute of working in the Montagnes Blanches. Despite a cease-and-desist letter from Resolute in January 2017, Greenpeace, Inc., published a report by Moas on May 17, 2017, that repeated the accusation of Resolute logging in the Montagnes Blanches. This report was distributed at a book expo by Greenpeace, Inc., employees Moas, Brindis, and Rolf Skar (defendant) beginning on May 31, 2017. Resolute had filed suit on May 31, 2016, asserting nine claims against these and other defendants, alleging trade libel, interference with prospective and contractual business relationships, and defamation, among others. All defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and some filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike, both of which the court granted as to some claims. The court determined that Resolute was a limited public figure and considered its defamation claim and its related unfair-competition claim.