Skip to content
Federal Criminal Trialtrial-daytrial-dayJohn C. BosticAdam RosendorffdirectDay 11 - September 24, 2021Adam Rosendorff testified that Theranos launched despite incomplete validation and his warnings about unreliable assays, staffing, and training. He described inconsistent Edison results, moving HCG testing to a conventional analyzer, pressure to defend questionable results, and his decision to preserve emails. The court deferred disputes over possible bias cross-examination.
← Day 10Federal Criminal TrialDay 12 →

Day 11 - September 24, 2021

Rosendorff Details Launch Warnings, Test Failures, and Professional Conflict

Judge Edward J. Davila
1Proceedings
1Pages
1Witnesses
2,135Lines
Day 11 of 51
Appearing:

Adam Rosendorff testified that Theranos launched despite incomplete validation and his warnings about unreliable assays, staffing, and training. He described inconsistent Edison results, moving HCG testing to a conventional analyzer, pressure to defend questionable results, and his decision to preserve emails. The court deferred disputes over possible bias cross-examination.

Full day summary

Adam Rosendorff testified about laboratory problems before and after Theranos's commercial launch. He said validation of planned general-chemistry tests remained incomplete nine days before launch and that he warned Elizabeth Holmes and Daniel Young about assay readiness, training, and staffing. According to Rosendorff, Holmes appeared nervous and upset when he identified unreliable potassium, sodium, and glucose tests, but the requested launch delay did not occur. Rosendorff described variation among Edison devices, manual exclusion of data points, and the use of modified or conventional third-party analyzers. He testified that he moved HCG testing to a Siemens instrument because he considered the Edison assay unfit for patient care. He also reviewed a patient matter involving a reported HCG result below range, a later result above 2,000, and a provider's report that medication had been discontinued after the negative result; he said he could not identify a clinical explanation for the discrepancy. Rosendorff said he felt pressured to defend or rationalize questionable results when speaking with physicians. He testified that he forwarded concerning emails to a personal account because he doubted Theranos would preserve them during a possible investigation, was considering a qui tam action, and believed disclosure served the public interest. He described an emotional conflict between his obligations within Theranos and his duties as a physician and laboratory director. Outside the jury's presence, the parties addressed possible cross-examination about matters arising after Rosendorff left Theranos. The defense said the material might bear on bias but agreed not to raise it that day. The court deferred a final ruling, invited written submissions, and directed the parties to confer. Testimony was scheduled to resume Tuesday after the weekend recess.

1. Adam Rosendorff — Direct

Evidentiary issues preceded Adam Rosendorff's direct testimony about Theranos laboratory practices, test failures, patient results, and concerns he raised with company leadership.

Procedural
Rosendorff Testimony and Cross-Examination Evidentiary Issues

Counsel disputed possible cross-examination of Adam Rosendorff about later employment and speculative testimony; the court deferred admissibility decisions and reserved Monday morning for further argument.

Direct
Adam RosendorffJohn C. Bostic
2050 lines

Theranos laboratory director Adam Rosendorff testified about rushed validation, recurring assay and quality-control failures, disputed patient results, management awareness, and the professional conflict that led him to preserve emails and leave the company.

Procedural
End-of-Day Jury Admonition and Scheduling

The court dismissed the jury for the weekend, repeated its media and discussion admonition, and directed counsel to meet and confer over contemplated bias evidence before testimony resumed Tuesday.

Highlights

Rosendorff Testimony and Cross-Examination Evidentiary IssuesobjectionThe government sought advance consideration of whether the defense could cross-examine Adam Rosendorff about CMS deficiency findings at a laboratory where he later worked. The defense argued that the material might bear on bias but committed not to raise it that day, and the court deferred the issue until the scope of direct examination was clearer.Adam Rosendorff — Directtestimony highlightExhibits 3231 and 1049 documented prelaunch validation problems. Rosendorff testified that none of the planned general-chemistry tests had completed validation nine days before launch and that he warned Holmes and Daniel Young about assay, training, and staffing concerns.Adam Rosendorff — Direct“I WAS RAISING THE ALARM BELLS ABOUT ASSAYS THAT I DIDN'T FEEL WERE READY FOR LAUNCH, AND ALSO RAISING SOME CONCERNS ABOUT STAFFING AND TRAINING. THAT'S UNDER NUMBER 2, OPERATIONAL.”— Adam RosendorffThe testimony characterizes his August 2013 email as a contemporaneous warning about launch readiness and laboratory operations.Adam Rosendorff — Directemotional momentRosendorff described telling Holmes that potassium, sodium, and glucose were unreliable. He testified that she appeared nervous and upset, that the requested launch delay did not occur, and that Holmes proposed reverting problematic assays to conventional instruments.Adam Rosendorff — Directevidence eventUsing Exhibit 1432, Rosendorff described high between-device variation, three Edisons operating as one testing system, and a manual process for removing two of six data points without rules he had seen for selecting the exclusions.Adam Rosendorff — DirectadmissionExhibit 4147 showed Rosendorff directing that all further HCG testing be moved to the Siemens Immulite and that pending Edison HCG results be held because he considered the Edison test unfit for patient care.Adam Rosendorff — Directtestimony highlightExhibits 4222 and 4228 addressed an HCG result reported below range, a later result above 2,000, and a provider's report that medication had been discontinued after the negative result. Rosendorff testified that he could not identify a clinical scenario explaining the discrepancy.Adam Rosendorff — DirectadmissionRosendorff testified that he began forwarding concerning emails to a personal account because he doubted Theranos would preserve them during a possible investigation, was considering a qui tam action, and believed the public benefit outweighed the risk of being sued.Adam Rosendorff — Direct“I FELT STRONGLY THAT THE PUBLIC BENEFITS OF THIS INFORMATION GETTING OUT WAS OF IMPORTANCE TO ME. I ALSO FELT FOR SELF-PROTECTION IN THE EVENT OF AN INVESTIGATION THAT SUCH A BENEFIT WOULD OUTWEIGH THE RISK OF BEING SUED BY THE COMPANY.”— Adam RosendorffThe statement explains Rosendorff's motive for forwarding company emails despite believing that doing so carried legal risk.Adam Rosendorff — Directemotional momentRosendorff described an inner conflict between his duties as a physician and laboratory director and pressure he felt to rationalize anomalous results rather than tell physicians that Theranos tests were inaccurate.Adam Rosendorff — Direct“I CAME TO BELIEVE THAT THE THERANOS RESULTS WERE WRONG. IT CAUSED A LOT OF INNER CONFLICT. I HAD A DUTY AS A PHYSICIAN TO BE HONEST AND STRAIGHTFORWARD WITH THE PROVIDERS. I ALSO HAD OBLIGATIONS WITHIN THE COMPANY. I HAD A DUTY AS A LAB DIRECTOR TO BE TRANSPARENT WITH THE CLIENTS. AT ONE POINT I STARTED TO REFUSE TO TALK TO PHYSICIANS. I BELIEVE THAT I TOLD ONE OR TWO PHYSICIANS THAT I DIDN'T BELIEVE THE RESULTS. THAT CAUSED A LOT OF EMOTIONAL DISCOMFORT FOR ME.”— Adam RosendorffRosendorff described the professional and emotional conflict caused by his assessment of Theranos test results and his duties to physicians and clients.
← Day 10Federal Criminal TrialDay 12 →