Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
Federal Criminal Trialtrial-daytrial-dayJohn C. BosticLance A. WadeAdam RosendorffcrossredirectDay 15 - October 5, 2021Defense counsel completed Rosendorff's cross-examination after deposition impeachment, questions about his departure, and limited inquiry into a current CMS inspection. On redirect, Rosendorff defended his government cooperation and returned to Edison validation, HCG testing, and unresolved quality-control concerns.
← Day 14Federal Criminal TrialDay 16 →

Day 15 - October 5, 2021

Rosendorff Cross Ends; Redirect Returns to Edison and HCG Concerns

Judge Edward J. Davila
4Proceedings
2Pages
1Witnesses
2,631Lines
Day 15 of 51
Appearing:
John C. Bostic Lance A. Wade Adam Rosendorff

Defense counsel completed Rosendorff's cross-examination after deposition impeachment, questions about his departure, and limited inquiry into a current CMS inspection. On redirect, Rosendorff defended his government cooperation and returned to Edison validation, HCG testing, and unresolved quality-control concerns.

Full day summary

Defense cross-examination of Adam Rosendorff continued through Theranos laboratory troubleshooting, physician complaints, his departure, and emails he sent to a personal account. Counsel used two deposition passages to contrast his current testimony with earlier statements about the frequency of complaints and the first obviously incorrect patient result. Rosendorff acknowledged the prior answers but emphasized differences in testing volume, maintained that laboratory risks drove his resignation, and denied sending company and patient information to himself for financial or litigation purposes. After excluding inquiry into Rosendorff's work at uBiome and Invitae, the court permitted limited questioning about whether a 2021 CMS inspection at his current laboratory could affect his testimony. It barred details about the inspection and Rosendorff's role. Rosendorff acknowledged discussing possible personal consequences and agreed that, depending on the outcome, his laboratory-director license could be suspended for at least two years. The defense then completed cross-examination. On redirect, Rosendorff said his cooperation with the government was voluntary and brought no promised benefit. He distinguished assay validation before clinical use from later performance, testifying that Edison testing subsequently showed inconsistent repeats, instrument variation, and outside-laboratory discrepancies. Newly admitted HCG emails documented his direction to move testing to the Immulite, delays in implementing that change, reagent shortages, and substantial Edison quality-control failures. He said management pressure discouraged him from proposing an end to Edison use and that his HCG accuracy concerns were never resolved to his satisfaction. Separate proceedings addressed public access and privacy. The court removed an exhibit that disclosed a patient's name and ordered a redacted replacement. It also discussed private conversations with jurors about possible release of their questionnaires; defense counsel objected to exclusion from those conversations, and no final format was selected. The court ended with its usual jury admonition and scheduling for the remaining examination and another local witness.

1. Evidentiary Hearing on Rosendorff's Post-Theranos Employment

Before the jury entered, the court heard disputes over proposed questioning of Adam Rosendorff, an unredacted patient name in a defense exhibit, and procedures for addressing a motion to unseal juror questionnaires.

→
Procedural
Evidentiary Hearing on Rosendorff's Post-Theranos Employment
124 lines

The court deferred ruling on whether the defense could use Adam Rosendorff's post-Theranos employment history to challenge his competence, truthfulness, or bias, citing concerns about collateral mini-trials, cumulative evidence, and extrinsic proof.

Procedural
Patient-Privacy Redaction Issue for Defense Exhibit DX 12846

The court ordered a redacted replacement for DX 12846 after learning that the publicly posted exhibit exposed a patient's name, and directed both parties to strengthen privacy screening before exhibits entered evidence or became public.

Procedural
Juror Questionnaire Unsealing Procedure

Defense counsel objected to exclusion from private juror interviews about unsealing questionnaires, and the court postponed the process without settling whether counsel would attend.

Highlights

Patient-Privacy Redaction Issue for Defense Exhibit DX 12846evidence eventThe court reported receiving a privacy complaint concerning DX 12846, said court staff had the online exhibit removed, and required the defense to submit a properly redacted replacement.

2. Adam Rosendorff — Cross/Redirect (Recall, Continued)

Defense counsel concluded Adam Rosendorff’s cross-examination before the court limited inquiry into his post-Theranos employment. Redirect then addressed his cooperation with investigators, Edison accuracy concerns, and unresolved HCG testing problems.

→
Cross
Adam RosendorffLance A. Wade
1717 lines

Defense counsel challenged Adam Rosendorff with assay records, prior sworn testimony, job-search documents, and personal emails, while Rosendorff maintained that recurring laboratory problems and professional risk—not financial motive—drove his concerns and departure.

Procedural
Evidentiary Hearing on Rosendorff's Post-Theranos Employment

The court barred defense questioning about Adam Rosendorff's work at uBiome and Invitae but allowed a narrowly limited inquiry into whether a PerkinElmer CMS inspection involving the same inspectors as Theranos could create bias.

Cross
Adam RosendorffLance A. Wade
64 lines

Defense counsel concluded cross-examination by eliciting that a CMS survey at Rosendorff's current laboratory could lead to suspension of his laboratory-director license for at least two years.

Redirect
Adam RosendorffJohn C. Bostic
617 lines

Adam Rosendorff defended his motives and signed validation reports, distinguished validation from later clinical performance, and used newly admitted HCG emails to explain unresolved Edison accuracy, quality-control, and laboratory-authority concerns.

Procedural
Evening Jury Admonition and Scheduling

The court renewed the jury's outside-information admonition, scheduled the remaining Rosendorff examination and one additional witness, and reserved possible time for a Rule 403-type discussion.

Highlights

Adam Rosendorff — CrossimpeachmentThe defense impeached Rosendorff with his Arizona deposition, where he had said physician complaints were not more common than at some high-volume laboratories; he acknowledged that answer seemed different from his direct testimony.Adam Rosendorff — Cross“NOT A LOT MORE. I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ELIZABETH GAVE ME STOCK OPTIONS. IN VIEW OF THE RISKS AND MY CONCERNS WITH THERANOS, I WALKED AWAY FROM THOSE STOCK OPTIONS AT THERANOS. I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS WORTH IT TO STAY AT THE COMPANY FOR THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IN THIS TRIAL.”— Adam RosendorffRosendorff rejected the suggestion that modestly higher compensation explained his departure and cited the risks he associated with remaining at Theranos.Adam Rosendorff — CrossconfrontationThe defense confronted Rosendorff with emails and an attached spreadsheet he had forwarded to a personal account. He acknowledged unredacted patient information, denied a commercial or litigation motive, and described initially refusing an order to delete the emails in the office.Evidentiary Hearing on Rosendorff's Post-Theranos EmploymentrulingThe court barred inquiry into uBiome and Invitae but permitted limited questioning about whether the PerkinElmer CMS inspection involving the same inspectors as Theranos could create bias.Adam Rosendorff — Cross ResumedadmissionRosendorff acknowledged discussing possible personal consequences with Mr. Yamamoto and agreed that, depending on the final outcome, his license to serve as a laboratory director could be suspended for at least two years. The defense then ended cross-examination.Adam Rosendorff — Redirecttestimony highlightRosendorff testified that his government meetings were voluntary, that no representative shaped his testimony or promised benefits, and that cooperation imposed personal stress and travel burdens.Adam Rosendorff — Redirect“IT WAS MEETINGS WITH DANIEL AND OTHER PROJECT MANAGERS WHERE THAT WAS THE SENSE THAT I WAS GETTING. IT WASN'T ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR THAT MS. HOLMES HAD SAID TO ME OR ANY EMAIL THAT I COULD POINT TO, YEAH.”— Adam RosendorffRosendorff expressly qualified the basis for his understanding that Holmes wanted expanded Edison use.Adam Rosendorff — Redirecttestimony highlightRosendorff distinguished pre-use validation from ongoing clinical performance, testifying that signed reports met applicable validation standards but that Edison accuracy and reproducibility later fell far short of the validation results he had reviewed.Adam Rosendorff — Redirectevidence eventAdditional admitted emails documented HCG delays, Edison QC failures, an Immulite reagent shortage, and later Edison QC results of 20 of 33 and 17 of 35 instruments passing. Rosendorff said his HCG accuracy concerns were never resolved to his satisfaction.Adam Rosendorff — Redirect“AS SHOWN IN THE PREVIOUS EMAIL, THERE WAS SOME UNCERTAINTY IN MY MIND WHAT METHOD WAS BEING RUN FOR HCG. I TRUSTED MY COLLEAGUES THAT THEY WOULD FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTIONS.”— Adam RosendorffThe statement explains why Rosendorff did not send repeated stop-testing directives and identifies the trust issue created by the HCG episode.
← Day 14Federal Criminal TrialDay 16 →