Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
personpersonSteven BurdSteven BurdFormer chief executive officer of Safeway, which pursued a retail partnership with Theranos.← All People
WitnessSafeway

Steven Burd

Former chief executive officer of Safeway, which pursued a retail partnership with Theranos.

AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
1,035 lines·10 proceedings·5 mentions

About

Steven Burd testified for the prosecution as Safeway's former chief executive about the company's proposed partnership with Theranos. He said Elizabeth Holmes led the negotiations and supplied information that informed Safeway's board presentations, projections, and agreement. According to Burd, Safeway expected a small, rapid, lower-cost analyzer capable of performing most laboratory testing inside its stores and relied on those representations when committing money and preparing for deployment.

Burd described construction, hiring, and public-relations preparations for the anticipated rollout. He said Safeway never saw the analyzer operate, no pilot took place, and no Theranos mini-lab was installed in a Safeway store. He also recounted lost samples, temperature-control problems, nonsensical results, and multi-day turnaround times at Safeway's on-campus facility, while contemporaneous emails documented repeated delays and growing frustration.

On cross-examination, Burd acknowledged that Safeway had experienced executives, outside advisers, hundreds of hours of diligence, contractual protections, and an understanding that the project faced regulatory and scaling risks. He also acknowledged that the agreement contained no fixed launch date and accepted responsibility as the project's sponsor and champion. Burd nevertheless maintained that Safeway's laboratory review did not validate the analyzer, that the company relied on representations of broad assay capability, and that he was not told analyzer problems were causing the delays.

On redirect, Burd said Theranos's reported maturity and cash-flow-neutral status reduced Safeway's concern that it was dealing with a newly formed startup. He attributed the asserted cartridge capability to Holmes, clarified that he had initially misunderstood the significance of a regulatory milestone, and described centralized processing as a temporary arrangement because Safeway expected in-store results within 20 to 30 minutes. On recross, he distinguished that model from fingerstick samples processed elsewhere and acknowledged that he no longer remembered the conversation underlying one email.

Trial Record (10)

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

Steven Burd, Safeway's former chief executive, testified for the prosecution about the company's investments and extensive preparations for a Theranos store rollout that never occurred. Cross-examination tested Safeway's diligence and awareness of development risks, while Burd maintained that the analyzer's limitations were not disclosed to him.

Day 16

ProceduralSafeway Renovation-Expense Evidence HearingMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel sought to exclude proposed testimony about Safeway's store-renovation spending, while prosecutors argued that the spending showed materiality; the court explored omitting the exact figure but did not rule in this excerpt. The court also prepared to question a juror concerned about continued service and confirmed that Alternate Juror 3 could remain.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectSteven Burd — DirectSteven BurdRobert S. Leach299lines spoken

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.

Day 17

DirectSteven Burd — DirectSteven BurdRobert S. Leach8highlights126lines spoken

Summary

Steven Burd described extensive Safeway preparations for a Theranos rollout, persistent problems at the on-campus laboratory, repeated unexplained delays, and an unmet pilot condition tied to a proposed $25 million payment. He said no Theranos mini-lab reached a Safeway store during his tenure.

Highlights (8)

Quote“I WOULD SAY I WAS DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE WE MET -- THE ORIGINAL DEADLINE FOR A PILOT WAS GOING TO BE IN THE FIRST QUARTER. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. AT THIS POINT WE'RE INTO THE THIRD QUARTER. SO, YOU KNOW, THE DATES JUST KEPT BEING PUSHED BACK.”— Steven BurdBurd summarized the widening gap between the original pilot schedule and the rollout's actual progress.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightBurd testified that Safeway had planned construction for all 969 first-phase stores and completed construction at 98 percent of them while preparing for the Theranos rollout.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightBurd attributed to Holmes the information that one cartridge could satisfy 95 percent of blood-test billing codes and said he understood Theranos could do that in August 2012.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightBurd described lost samples, improperly controlled sample temperatures, nonsensical results, and unpredictable turnaround times at the Safeway on-campus laboratory.Open in transcript →
Show all 8 highlights
Quote“WE HAD SAMPLES WHERE TEMPERATURE WAS NOT PROPERLY CONTROLLED, WE HAD SAMPLES THAT WERE LOST, WE HAD RESULTS THAT DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.”— Steven BurdBurd identified specific operational problems underlying his concern about the on-campus laboratory's reputation.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightUsing contemporaneous emails, Burd explained that Safeway was ready for a launch but continued waiting on Theranos without a substantive explanation for the delays.Open in transcript →
Quote“THE CONDITIONS WOULD BE A PILOT THAT WE REGARDED AS A SUCCESS, AND THE WAY -- WE SAID THAT WE ALONE WOULD DECIDE WHETHER IT WAS SUCCESSFUL, AND THAT CONDITION HAD NOT BEEN MET.”— Steven BurdBurd explained why he believed the contractual condition for the proposed $25 million payment remained unsatisfied.Open in transcript →
admissionBurd testified that, to his knowledge, Theranos never placed a mini-lab in a Safeway store and Safeway never successfully offered Theranos testing to nonemployees and their families.Open in transcript →
CrossSteven Burd — CrossSteven BurdKevin M. Downey7highlights521lines spoken

Summary

Defense counsel used Safeway's extensive due diligence, commercial incentives, and contractual safeguards to challenge the nature of its reliance on Theranos. Burd agreed that Safeway understood significant startup and regulatory risks but maintained that key analyzer capabilities were never validated and that no technology problem with the device was disclosed to him.

Highlights (7)

admissionAfter Defendant's Exhibit 7190 was admitted, Burd confirmed that Safeway had spent hundreds of hours on due diligence and had communicated almost daily with Holmes and Theranos for more than a year.Open in transcript →
Quote“IT WAS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT, BUT IT DESERVES A LITTLE EXPLANATION. BECAUSE I WAS SENSITIVE TO ELIZABETH'S TIME AND WE HAD BEEN THROUGH A GOOD DEAL OF OUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE, THEY COULD ASK ME THE QUESTIONS THAT I PROBABLY ASKED ALREADY AND I COULD PROVIDE THE ANSWERS SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GO TO ELIZABETH.”— Steven BurdBurd confirmed the breadth of Safeway's diligence while explaining why he directed another retailer to use Safeway as the first source for diligence questions.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightBurd testified that a Johns Hopkins laboratory director said Theranos had removed its analyzer before Hopkins had enough time to validate whether it could perform as represented.Open in transcript →
Quote“WHAT THEY SAID WAS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE BOX HERE LONG ENOUGH TO VALIDATE IT THE WAY WE WOULD LIKE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE BOX WAS TAKEN BACK BY THERANOS. AND THE LAB DIRECTOR SAID, LOOK, IF THEY CAN DO THIS, IT'S A GAME CHANGER, BUT I CAN'T VALIDATE FOR YOU THAT THEY'VE DONE IT. I DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME WITH THE BOX.”— Steven BurdThe testimony identifies a contemporaneous limitation on the scientific validation available to Safeway despite the perceived potential of the technology.Open in transcript →
Show all 7 highlights
Quote“JUST THE IDEA OF GETTING EVERY INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE COUNTRY TO BUY INTO YOUR PRICE SCHEDULE, THAT'S A BIG EXERCISE IN ITS OWN, AND THEN WRITE SOFTWARE TO INTEGRATE IT WITH SAFEWAY, THAT'S A BIG EXERCISE, LAUNCHING, MARKETING, ALL OF THAT STUFF. I WAS NEVER TOLD THERE WAS A TECHNOLOGY PROBLEM WITH THE BOX ITSELF.”— Steven BurdBurd distinguished expected operational and regulatory work from a technological defect in the analyzer, which he said was never disclosed to him.Open in transcript →
rulingWhen defense counsel sought to strike Burd's explanation of why on-campus samples were processed at Theranos, the court left the answer in the record; Burd then agreed that the operating process was not the promised on-site-device model.Open in transcript →
Quote“WELL, IT MEANS THAT I HOLD MYSELF PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING THIS DEAL DONE AND EXECUTED.”— Steven BurdBurd described the responsibility he assumed as Safeway's sponsor and champion of the Theranos project.Open in transcript →
RedirectSteven Burd — RedirectSteven BurdRobert S. Leach62lines spoken

Summary

Steven Burd reaffirmed Safeway's reliance on representations about Theranos's maturity, finances, device capabilities, and regulatory progress. He said no Walgreens, laboratory, or device problem was given to him as the reason for the December 2012 delays and clarified that Safeway's $275 million figure concerned store remodeling, not payment to Theranos.

Day 28

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 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.