Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
personpersonLisa PetersonLisa PetersonRDV Corporation investment manager involved in its Theranos investment review.← All People
WitnessRDV Corporation

Lisa Peterson

RDV Corporation investment manager involved in its Theranos investment review.

AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
1,589 lines·29 proceedings·18 mentions

About

Lisa Peterson testified for the prosecution about RDV Corporation's review of Theranos and its approximately $100 million investment. As a manager of private-equity investments, she reviewed Theranos materials, participated in a call with Elizabeth Holmes, prepared investment memoranda, attended a Palo Alto visit, and informed the DeVos family investment committee.

Peterson described RDV's understanding that Theranos could perform hundreds of tests from fingerstick samples using proprietary analyzers, had pharmaceutical validation and military-related work, and expected substantial expansion through Walgreens. She said RDV was not told that third-party machines performed some or most testing. She also identified post-investment broadcasts and described an April 2016 meeting with Holmes concerning laboratory and regulatory developments.

Cross-examination tested Peterson's authority, diligence, recollection, and account of the investment timeline. She acknowledged that she could inform but not approve the investment, did not attend the investment committee meeting, lacked scientific expertise, and had not pursued several forms of independent technical, regulatory, or commercial diligence. After counsel compared her testimony with contemporaneous documents and her deposition, she agreed that the investment decision had been made by the end of the Palo Alto meeting, before her second memorandum, and said she discarded handwritten notes after incorporating them into that memorandum.

Peterson maintained that cash planning and expressions of interest were distinct from formal approval and that later diligence could still have stopped the transaction. On redirect, she said RDV understood the investment agreement to permit reliance on written and oral representations and distinguished projections from statements understood as present or historical facts.

Trial Record (29)

FederalFederal Criminal TrialAug 31, 2021 – Jan 3, 2022Called by prosecution

Lisa Peterson testified for the prosecution about RDV Corporation's approximately $100 million Theranos investment, the representations underlying its review, and information she said was not disclosed. Cross-examination tested her authority, diligence, recollection, and account of the investment timeline, followed by redirect about RDV's approval process and reliance.

Day 4

OpeningOpening Statement by the ProsecutionRobert S. LeachMentioned

Summary

The prosecution alleged that Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh Balwani defrauded Theranos investors and patients through misrepresentations about the company's technology, partnerships, finances, retail rollout, and test accuracy. It previewed insiders, investors, patients, outside organizations, and records that it expected would support the wire-fraud and conspiracy charges.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 21

CrossDaniel Edlin — CrossDaniel EdlinKevin M. DowneyMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel narrowed Daniel Edlin's technical expertise, elicited that he relied on Theranos scientists and did not believe his external communications were false, and developed his operational role in a multi-site burn study. The court later deferred a Rule 106 decision about FDA-inspection text messages.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 24

ProceduralHearing on Peterson Video EvidenceMentioned

Summary

The court permitted selected government excerpts from Holmes's Mad Money and Today Show interviews, rejected the defense's broad state-of-mind rationale, and indicated that Peterson's reaction to the later AACC presentation was not relevant.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ProceduralHearing on Peterson Materiality FoundationMentioned

Summary

The court treated challenges to Lisa Peterson's knowledge of RDV's investment decision as primarily matters of weight, while the defense preserved its foundation objection and the government clarified Peterson's limited role in authenticating two later interview videos.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectLisa Peterson — DirectLisa PetersonRobert S. Leach4highlights208lines spoken

Summary

Lisa Peterson traced the Theranos materials, Holmes conversations, and Palo Alto meeting that informed RDV's investment review, including claims about fingerstick testing, validation, Walgreens expansion, and execution risk.

Highlights (4)

objectionThe defense objected to hearsay within Peterson's description of her assignment, and the court instructed the jury that statements attributed to Jerry Tubergen were admitted only as foundation for Peterson's employment, duties, and engagement—not for their truth.Open in transcript →
evidence eventExhibit 2015, Peterson's ordinary-course notes from the October 3 call with Holmes, was admitted. Peterson explained that the notes recorded statements about a projected 900-store Walgreens rollout and characterized the principal risk as execution rather than the technology's utility.Open in transcript →
Quote“THE PHONE CALL FROM MS. HOLMES AND THE BINDERS WERE THE TWO THINGS, AS WELL AS WHAT I COULD FIND ON THE INTERNET.”— Lisa PetersonPeterson identified the limited sources underlying her pre-meeting investment memorandum and distinguished Theranos-supplied information from her internet research.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightPeterson described the October 14 Palo Alto meeting, where the visitors were shown a small analyzer and Cheri DeVos received a fingerstick test. Peterson did not enter the clinical laboratory or see DeVos's results, but testified that discussion after the meeting shifted RDV's contemplated investment from $50 million toward $100 million.Open in transcript →
DirectLisa Peterson — Direct (Resumed)Lisa PetersonRobert S. Leach3highlights135lines spoken

Summary

Lisa Peterson linked Pfizer-branded reports, Theranos financial and expansion projections, and proprietary-analyzer claims to RDV's review of its approximately $100 million investment.

Highlights (3)

testimony highlightPeterson testified that Pfizer logos led her to believe study reports came from Pfizer and that perceived independent validation was highly relevant to RDV's evaluation.Open in transcript →
Quote“AGAIN, IT CAME FROM A LARGE COMPANY. IT VALIDATED EVERYTHING THAT SHE WAS TELLING US FROM A LARGE EXTERNAL INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY.”— Lisa PetersonPeterson explained why she regarded the Pfizer-branded report as important independent support for representations made during diligence.Open in transcript →
objectionThe defense moved to strike Peterson's answers about analyzer manufacturing and pharmaceutical validation for lack of personal knowledge; the court overruled the objection and left the answers in the record.Open in transcript →
ProceduralHearing on Mad Money Video ClipsMentioned

Summary

The court overruled defense foundation, relevance, and Rule 106 objections, allowed three Mad Money interview clips to be played, and directed that the videos need not be transcribed.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossLisa Peterson — CrossLisa PetersonLance A. Wade1highlight815lines spoken

Summary

Peterson acknowledged major limits on RDV's independent Theranos diligence while disputing that enthusiasm or informal emails replaced formal approval of the approximately $100 million investment.

Highlights (1)

Quote“I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS THE CASE. WE WERE RELYING ON FOUR KEY ELEMENTS OF THIS, WHICH WERE THE FINANCIALS THAT WERE SOLID, THE CONTRACTS THAT WERE IN PLACE, THE FACT THAT THEY HAD DONE WORK FOR THE LAST FIVE TO SEVEN YEARS WITH PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES THAT, THAT SUBSTANTIATED THE ACCURACY OF IT. THOSE ARE WHAT WE BASED OUR INVESTMENT DECISION ON.”— Lisa PetersonPeterson rejected the suggestion that enthusiasm for a high-growth investment drove RDV and identified the representations she regarded as central to its analysis.Open in transcript →

Day 25

ProceduralVictim-Blaming Evidence and Argument Hearing2highlightsMentioned

Summary

The court barred further inquiry into Lisa Peterson's due diligence and reaffirmed that the defense could not use lack of investor diligence as a defense; no immediate curative instruction was given.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (2)

rulingThe court barred further inquiry into Peterson's due diligence and reaffirmed that the defense could not argue lack of due diligence as a defense, while leaving the testimony already elicited in the record.Open in transcript →
Quote“BUT FURTHER INQUIRY ON THAT SHOULDN'T BE HAD. I THINK YOU'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE THE POINT, WHAT SHE DID, WHAT SHE DIDN'T DO.”— Edward J. DavilaThe judge imposed a direct limit on additional questioning about Peterson's due diligence.Open in transcript →

Day 26

CrossLisa Peterson — CrossLisa PetersonLance A. Wade5highlights302lines spoken

Summary

Peterson faced documentary challenges to RDV's reliance account, acknowledged that the $100 million decision preceded her final memorandum, and confirmed contractual warnings about investment risk and projections.

Highlights (5)

Quote“I DIDN'T MEMORIZE THE WHOLE FOOT OF PAPER TO TELL YOU WHAT CAME FROM THERE IN MY MEMO OR NOT.”— Lisa PetersonPeterson directly acknowledged the limits of her present ability to trace particular statements in her memorandum to individual diligence materials.Open in transcript →
Quote“WE DID NOT KNOW THAT THERE WAS VENOUS TESTING UNTIL WE READ "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL" ARTICLE A YEAR LATER. IT'S NOT WHAT WE HAD INVESTED IN. IT'S NOT WHAT WE HAD THOUGHT WE HAD INVESTED IN.”— Lisa PetersonPeterson stated RDV's asserted understanding of the testing technology and why the later disclosure of venous testing mattered to its investment account; the court overruled the motion to strike this answer.Open in transcript →
impeachmentAfter Peterson resisted characterizing the investment as decided at the October 15 meeting, counsel read her deposition answer agreeing that the decision to invest $100 million had been made by the meeting's end. Peterson acknowledged the prior answer and agreed the decision preceded her second memorandum.Open in transcript →
Quote“THAT'S VERY TYPICAL FOR ME. I WRITE STUFF OUT, I TYPE UP A MEMO, AND I TOSS THE NOTES AND PUT THE MEMO IN THE FILE.”— Lisa PetersonPeterson explained why her original meeting notes were no longer available, making the memorandum the surviving record of her note-taking process.Open in transcript →
Show all 5 highlights
admissionThe signed investment agreement was admitted. Peterson acknowledged provisions describing the investment as highly speculative, giving RDV an opportunity to request information, warning that projections could vary substantially, identifying RDV as an accredited investor, and making the writing the parties' entire agreement.Open in transcript →
RedirectLisa Peterson — RedirectLisa PetersonRobert S. Leach1highlight80lines spoken

Summary

Peterson defended RDV's reliance on Theranos's oral and written representations, distinguished projections from claimed existing capabilities, and said early cash planning did not make the investment inevitable.

Highlights (1)

Quote“EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID TO US WE BELIEVE IS FAIR GAME FOR US TO MAKE OUR INVESTMENT DECISION ON AND WHAT WE RELIED ON, NOT JUST WHAT WE READ IN WRITING, BUT ALSO WHAT WE WERE TOLD.”— Lisa PetersonPeterson directly stated that RDV's reliance extended beyond the written investment agreement to oral representations.Open in transcript →

Day 30

Day 36

ProceduralMotion to Exclude Fabrizio Bonanni Testimony and Late DisclosuresMentioned

Summary

The government sought to exclude Fabrizio Bonanni's proposed testimony based on relevance and late disclosures. The defense argued that his knowledge of Minilab capabilities and Holmes's later conduct bore on intent. The court raised foundation, hearsay, discovery, and scheduling concerns but issued no exclusion ruling.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ProceduralRule 29 Motion and Evidentiary Record MattersMentioned

Summary

The defense renewed challenges to the CMS report, Erin Tompkins's HIV-result evidence, and evidence affected by the unavailable LIS database. Holmes also made a Rule 29 motion, which the court took under submission, and the court limited the defense's patent summary to applications filed through 2016 before the defense called Trent Middleton.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 42

CrossElizabeth A. Holmes — CrossElizabeth A. HolmesRobert S. LeachMentioned

Summary

Holmes acknowledged that Theranos devices were not clinically deployed with the military, that the company used third-party analyzers, and that key disclosures to investors, Walgreens, and Roger Parloff omitted or misstated aspects of actual laboratory operations. The prosecution also confronted her with divergent revenue projections, laboratory warnings, prototype limitations, special investor-visit workflows, and her knowledge of the troubled 2015 CMS inspection.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RedirectElizabeth A. Holmes — RedirectElizabeth A. HolmesKevin M. DowneyMentioned

Summary

Holmes used redirect to explain Theranos's laboratory oversight, modified analyzers, financial projections, partner reports, trade-secret restrictions, and responses to Tyler Shultz. She attributed operational and technical work to others while acknowledging authority over investor presentations and explaining nondisclosure of modified systems as trade-secret protection.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 46

ClosingClosing Argument by the ProsecutionJeff SchenkMentioned

Summary

The prosecution argued that Holmes knowingly deceived investors and patients, linked the documentary and testimonial record to the conspiracy and wire-fraud elements, rebutted the principal defense themes, and requested guilty verdicts on all remaining counts.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 47