Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
personpersonRamesh "Sunny" BalwaniRamesh "Sunny" BalwaniFormer president and chief operating officer of Theranos and Holmes's former business and romantic partner.← All People
Co-defendantTheranos

Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani

Former president and chief operating officer of Theranos and Holmes's former business and romantic partner.

MentionedFederal Criminal Trial
119 proceedings·119 mentions

About

Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani served as Theranos's president and chief operating officer and was Holmes's business and romantic partner. The prosecution alleged that they jointly participated in the charged schemes, while testimony and documents connected Balwani to financial reporting and models, Walgreens rollout projections, laboratory and operational management, and communications with Holmes. The court instructed jurors that Balwani's separate case was not before them and that they must not speculate about it.

Holmes testified that Balwani increasingly controlled Theranos's device, laboratory, and chemistry teams and did not necessarily report every problem to her. She described his personal and professional influence and alleged mistreatment, but denied that he controlled her statements to investors, journalists, Walgreens, Safeway, or the board. The defense also sought to introduce portions of Balwani's SEC deposition concerning laboratory responsibility, financial modeling, and commercial relationships.

Trial Record (119)

FederalFederal Criminal TrialAug 31, 2021 – Jan 3, 2022

Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani served as Theranos's president and chief operating officer, and the prosecution alleged that he and Elizabeth Holmes jointly participated in the charged schemes. Testimony connected him to financial modeling, Walgreens projections, and laboratory operations, while jurors were instructed that his separate case was not before them.

Jury Selection Day 1

Voir DireCourt-Led Voir Dire of Panel OneMentioned

Summary

The court screened Panel One for accommodations, witness connections, media exposure, and bias, retaining Mr. Chuang for further inquiry after he acknowledged that a documentary had influenced his opinion of the defense.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Voir DirePanel One Voir Dire ResumesMentioned

Summary

The court examined Panel One's media exposure and impartiality, excused two prospective jurors who doubted they could remain unbiased and two for financial hardship, and continued screening for sensitive experiences and acceptance of core criminal-trial principles.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

sidebarSidebar on Cause and Hardship ChallengesMentioned

Summary

The court resolved several cause and hardship challenges involving media exposure, bias, caregiving, language, and learning concerns, while leaving three prospective jurors for further inquiry.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Jury Selection Day 2

Day 4

Jury InstructionPreliminary Jury InstructionsMentioned

Summary

Judge Davila instructed the jury on the 12 conspiracy and wire-fraud counts, the government's burden, evidence and credibility rules, juror conduct, and the separate status of Ramesh Balwani's case.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

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 6

ProceduralEmail Exhibit Admissibility HearingMentioned

Summary

Defense challenged Theranos email exhibits on hearsay, foundation, and relevance grounds; the court allowed foundation for Exhibits 1287 and 1289 and deferred the remaining dispute.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 7

Day 8

Day 9

ProceduralEvidentiary HearingMentioned

Summary

The court set an initial protocol for displaying selected Holmes-Balwani messages, confirmed limits on customer-impact testimony, and addressed corrected test reports without deciding all message-specific objections.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossSurekha Gangakhedkar — CrossSurekha GangakhedkarLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Gangakhedkar acknowledged extensive successful assay development, regular updates to Holmes, and formal CLIA-validation planning, while maintaining that R&D reports were not CLIA validation and that detailed information sharing remained limited. She also described team frustration with Balwani's pressure shortly before her resignation.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 10

ProceduralText Message Admissibility Hearing and RulingsMentioned

Summary

The court resolved disputed Rule 106 text-message designations, allowed journalist-related messages for notice and knowledge with a limiting instruction, ordered one name redacted, and left other evidentiary objections open.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectJustin Offen — DirectJustin OffenRobert S. LeachMentioned

Summary

Justin Offen explained how PwC preserved Holmes's devices, reconstructed Holmes-Balwani messages, and validated the resulting spreadsheet. The court admitted selected message pages, sometimes only for Holmes's knowledge and notice, before scheduling caused the unfinished examination to be interrupted.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectJustin Offen — DirectJustin OffenRobert S. LeachMentioned

Summary

Justin Offen identified and presented Holmes-Balwani messages concerning laboratory operations, responsibility, and validation concerns. The court admitted redacted Exhibit 5387B and admitted Exhibit 5387A for authentication purposes while preserving message-specific objections.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 11

Day 12

CrossAdam Rosendorff — CrossAdam RosendorffLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel challenged Adam Rosendorff with his government-interview history, prior testimony, and laboratory records while examining his CLIA responsibility, management constraints, the restricted September 2013 launch, assay validation, and Theranos's quality and reporting systems.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 13

CrossAdam Rosendorff — CrossAdam RosendorffLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel challenged Adam Rosendorff with inspection records, compliance emails, signed Edison validation reports, quality-system data, and proficiency-testing records. Rosendorff acknowledged inspection cooperation, assay approvals, and predicate-device proficiency testing while maintaining that later Edison performance, incident management, and alternative testing remained deficient.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 14

CrossAdam Rosendorff — CrossAdam RosendorffLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel challenged Adam Rosendorff with AAP policies, laboratory emails, physician-call records, and meeting calendars. Rosendorff accepted substantial laboratory-director responsibility but maintained that proficiency-testing implementation and data access were incomplete and that management sometimes exceeded its qualifications.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 15

Day 16

RecrossAdam Rosendorff — RecrossAdam RosendorffLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel used emails and prior testimony to challenge Adam Rosendorff on laboratory authority, HCG implementation, launch scope, and complaint frequency. Rosendorff made several concessions but preserved qualifications about operational control, quality-control failures, and limited recollection.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectSteven Burd — DirectSteven BurdRobert S. LeachMentioned

Summary

Former Safeway CEO Steven Burd testified that Holmes's representations about a fast, comprehensive mini-lab drove a strategic retail agreement, substantial payments, and convertible-note purchases. He also described a failed board demonstration, repeated rollout delays, and Safeway's unmet expectation that Theranos's own technology was operating and validated.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 17

Day 18

Day 19

DirectNimesh Jhaveri — DirectNimesh JhaveriJeff SchenkMentioned

Summary

Nimesh Jhaveri described Walgreens's expansion conditions concerning fingerstick use and other pilot metrics, unmet venous-draw projections, and requests for financial and technology transparency. Admitted messages between Holmes and Balwani, read during the examination, addressed a nanotainer change not disclosed to Walgreens for three to four weeks and how to present it.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossSunil Dhawan — CrossSunil DhawanLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Dhawan testified that he barely interacted with Holmes, assumed rather than knew that Balwani ran the laboratory, and relied on staff to prepare documents correctly; the court also admitted records concerning his regulatory qualifications and Lynette Sawyer's laboratory-director role.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 20

DirectDaniel Edlin — DirectDaniel EdlinJohn C. BosticMentioned

Summary

Daniel Edlin described Theranos's information controls, Walgreens work, staged visitor tours, and technology demonstrations, then used an admitted August 2013 email chain to explain null protocols, separate laboratory processing, and a demo application that concealed protocol failures.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 21

DirectDaniel Edlin — DirectDaniel EdlinJohn C. BosticMentioned

Summary

Daniel Edlin described concealed demonstration errors, selective removal or reframing of test results, third-party processing, and internal technical problems. He also linked Holmes to report review, revised external communications, and detailed approval of website content while qualifying the limits of his own technical knowledge.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectDaniel Edlin — Direct (Resumed)Daniel EdlinJohn C. BosticMentioned

Summary

Daniel Edlin linked Holmes to the review and approval of media responses, investor materials, patient-response messaging, and military communications. He also qualified his knowledge of technical claims, describing military devices that could perform only a subset of tests and complaint processes outside his responsibilities.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectDaniel Edlin — Direct (Resumed)Daniel EdlinJohn C. BosticMentioned

Summary

Daniel Edlin distinguished Theranos's military research, evaluation, and cybersecurity testing from clinical deployment, contrasted presentation claims with his limited knowledge and demonstration experience, and described Holmes's role in military planning, resource allocation, and decision-making alongside Ramesh Balwani.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

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 22

CrossDaniel Edlin — CrossDaniel EdlinKevin M. DowneyMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel used Daniel Edlin's resumed cross-examination to characterize Theranos's military projects as customized evaluations and its demonstrations as varied, labeled processes distinct from clinical testing. Edlin denied deceptive intent but maintained limits on his technical knowledge and confirmed that SOCOM never performed its planned experiment.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossDaniel Edlin — Cross (Resumed)Daniel EdlinKevin M. DowneyMentioned

Summary

Daniel Edlin described Theranos's collaborative process for sourcing, reviewing, tailoring, and revising investor, website, media, and patient-facing claims. The court admitted numerous supporting emails and presentations, excluded a collective of customer-feedback reports on relevance grounds, and admitted an email concerning an external technology advisory board.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RedirectDaniel Edlin — RedirectDaniel EdlinJohn C. BosticMentioned

Summary

Daniel Edlin distinguished Theranos's military evaluations and artificial scenarios from clinical deployment, confirmed that demonstration software hid errors and that results were selectively reported, and connected Holmes to technology information and final review of external materials. He said repeated failures to demonstrate the technology contributed to his departure.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 24

Day 25

Day 26

sidebarSidebar on Admissibility of Exhibit 2065Mentioned

Summary

The court sustained the defense objection to admitting Exhibit 2065 through Lisa Peterson at that time, citing timing and foundation while leaving broader evidentiary questions unresolved.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 27

Day 28

CrossLynette Sawyer — CrossLynette SawyerLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Lynette Sawyer agreed that her Theranos co-director assignment was intended to be temporary, limited, and off-site, while qualifying counsel's broader characterization of her other laboratory-director work. The court admitted the consulting agreement governing her services and scheduled cross-examination to continue.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 30

CrossLynette Sawyer — CrossLynette SawyerLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Lynette Sawyer agreed that her Theranos co-director role was limited and off-site, while emphasizing gaps in her knowledge of the company's LIS, nanotainers, and proprietary testing. Admitted emails documented her decision not to renew, her extension through June, and her formal departure.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 31

Day 32

CrossAlan Eisenman — CrossAlan EisenmanKevin M. DowneyMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel used investor emails, prior statements, and Eisenman's communications with prosecutors during his ongoing testimony to challenge his recollection and credibility. Eisenman maintained that Theranos withheld information and that Balwani encouraged his 2013 investment, while acknowledging limits on his information rights and an email to the prosecution after a no-contact instruction.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossAlan Eisenman — Cross (Resumed)Alan EisenmanKevin M. DowneyMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel confronted Alan Eisenman with written risk warnings, investment agreements, possible share-sale opportunities, and his contacts with the prosecution. Eisenman acknowledged the documents and market inquiries but maintained that the warnings conflicted with earlier representations, that proposed company offers were not completed, and that he lacked adequate financial information to decide whether to sell.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RedirectAlan Eisenman — RedirectAlan EisenmanJohn C. BosticMentioned

Summary

Alan Eisenman distinguished speculative projections from claims about Theranos's existing capabilities and explained the information he relied on for his 2013 investment. He also addressed his requests for company information, Balwani's response to the investment, possible stock sales, and his conclusion that the shares were now worth zero.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 33

Day 34

CrossBrian Grossman — CrossBrian GrossmanLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Grossman acknowledged that PFM knew of technical, regulatory, execution, venous-draw, and patient-experience risks before investing, while maintaining that PFM conducted extensive diligence, viewed many risks as limited or manageable, and relied partly on Theranos representations when access to company-specific outside review was restricted.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 35

CrossMark Burnes — CrossMark BurnesKatherine TrefzMentioned

Summary

Burnes acknowledged Theranos's early appeal, limited his reported use of its testing, and said he knew of no earlier Theranos problem besides Ellsworth's PSA result. He accepted that laboratory errors and method differences occur but characterized significant PSA errors as rare and expected ordinary variation to be small.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 36

DirectFabrizio Bonanni — DirectFabrizio BonanniKatherine TrefzMentioned

Summary

Bonanni explained the Minilab through demonstratives and described Theranos's 2016 board debates, regulatory strategy, and quality and compliance reforms. He praised Holmes's receptiveness to advice but identified operational focus and regulatory execution as weaknesses; several proposed opinions were excluded.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 38

DirectElizabeth A. Holmes — DirectElizabeth A. HolmesKevin M. DowneyMentioned

Summary

Holmes described Theranos's 4 Series development, Walgreens and Safeway partnerships, clinical validation, FDA disclosures, marketing, investor communications, and financial projections. She admitted adding pharmaceutical logos to Theranos reports and regretted how that was handled, while attributing limited disclosure of modified commercial analyzers to trade-secret advice.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 39

ProceduralHearing on Admission of Sunny Balwani’s Prior TestimonyMentioned

Summary

The defense sought to admit selected SEC deposition testimony from Ramesh Balwani under two Rule 804 exceptions. The government opposed admission, and the court probed unavailability, self-inculpatory character, corroboration, SEC-DOJ alignment, completeness, and the lack of prosecution cross-examination without announcing a ruling.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ProceduralHearing on Renewed Motion to Admit Exhibit 14259Mentioned

Summary

The defense renewed its request to admit the E.T. test-results email as a business record. The government raised embedded-hearsay and foundation concerns, and the court deferred a ruling while considering redaction and further review.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectElizabeth A. Holmes — DirectElizabeth A. HolmesKevin M. DowneyMentioned

Summary

Holmes described Theranos's military projects, demonstrations, laboratory oversight, and regulatory history before giving emotional testimony alleging coercion and sexual abuse by Ramesh Balwani. She denied that Balwani forced her investor or press statements, addressed the 2015 CMS failures and later remediation, and said she never sold her Theranos shares.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 40

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

Summary

Holmes's cross-examination covered Theranos's response to critical reporting and whistleblowers, her control of the company, limits on Theranos devices, and Balwani's influence. She acknowledged major mistakes in the Wall Street Journal response, extensive reliance on commercial equipment, and problems with pharmaceutical-branded reports while disputing retaliation and several prosecutorial characterizations.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 41

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 43

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

Summary

Holmes used redirect to explain Walgreens communications, technical and laboratory advice, statements to Roger Parloff, and Balwani's management role. She maintained that experts informed her technology claims, denied intending to mislead investors or patients, and acknowledged ultimate responsibility while saying she did not know every event or decision at Theranos.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RecrossElizabeth A. Holmes — RecrossElizabeth A. HolmesRobert S. LeachMentioned

Summary

Holmes agreed that Theranos's trade-secret policy permitted confidential disclosures to partners protected by agreements, including Walgreens and pharmaceutical companies. She also confirmed the limited Walgreens rollout, the timing of its $75 million payment, and investors' entitlement to truthful information about current capabilities before leaving the stand.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ProceduralRenewed Rule 29 Motion HearingMentioned

Summary

Holmes renewed her Rule 29 motion, which remained preserved and reserved. The court set the jury-instruction schedule and accepted briefing on the government's proposed motion to strike portions of Holmes's testimony.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 44

Day 45

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