Day 24 - October 26, 2021

Before the jury entered, the parties disputed the permissible scope of broadcast excerpts and the foundation for Lisa Peterson's testimony. The court treated the challenge to Peterson's account of what mattered to RDV as an issue of weight, allowed selected Mad Money clips, and later admitted the full Today Show interview after the defense raised completeness concerns. The court also addressed a juror accommodation, sealed details of a juror health condition, adjusted the trial schedule, and warned spectators about distracting keyboard noise. On direct examination, Peterson described reviewing Theranos materials for RDV and preparing an investment memorandum from information provided during a call with Holmes, two diligence binders, and online research. She testified that claims concerning fingerstick testing, Walgreens expansion, pharmaceutical-company validation, proprietary analyzers, portability, accuracy, and cost informed RDV's assessment. Peterson said discussion after an October 2014 Palo Alto meeting increased the contemplated investment from $50 million to about $100 million. She identified Dynasty Financial II LLC as the investing entity and confirmed that it invested $99,999,984. Peterson also testified that Theranos had not disclosed its use of third-party analyzers before the investment and later characterized regulatory concerns and adverse reporting as having been downplayed. Cross-examination focused on Peterson's authority, experience, diligence, and recollection. She acknowledged that this was her first unaffiliated direct private-company investment, that she lacked approval authority, and that RDV did not contact its Walgreens source, retain technical or regulatory experts, request testing data or contracts, or conduct several other independent checks. She said RDV relied on the supplied representations and avoided circumventing Theranos's process because it feared losing the opportunity. Counsel also used prior statements and contemporaneous emails to test her recollection and the timing of the investment commitment; Peterson maintained that no formal commitment existed until RDV completed its internal process. Cross-examination remained unfinished, and the court deferred disputes concerning Peterson's later AACC assessment and Exhibit 5273 until the next morning.