Day 26 - November 2, 2021

Lisa Peterson's examination concluded with competing accounts of RDV's investment process. On cross-examination, she acknowledged prior deposition testimony that the $100 million investment decision had been made by the end of the October 15 meeting, before her second memorandum, and she reviewed agreement provisions describing the investment as speculative and warning that projections could vary. On redirect, she maintained that RDV relied on oral statements as well as written materials, distinguished projections from claims she understood as present or historical facts, and said later diligence still could have stopped the investment. The court sustained an objection to admitting Exhibit 2065 through Peterson at that time because the timing and foundation were inadequate, without categorically excluding the document. Constance Cullen described Schering-Plough's 2009 evaluation of Theranos. She distinguished a limited beta test from validation work performed by Theranos, said a May technical meeting did not provide sufficient direct answers, and denied endorsing the later Theranos report or its conclusions. She rejected a description of the report as Schering-Plough's independent validation and identified differences in a version bearing a Schering-Plough logo. On cross-examination, Cullen agreed that the limited test appeared to work well and showed impressive sensitivity, that the written protocol met its stated requirements, and that she never communicated her technical concerns or later report assessment to Theranos. She nevertheless maintained that the protocol's execution would not have met health-authority validation requirements. Daniel Mosley testified that materials he reviewed before investing led him to understand that Theranos offered comprehensive finger-stick testing on its own devices and had received outside validation. He believed Pfizer authored a report carrying Pfizer and Theranos logos and said learning that its conclusions were Theranos's would have changed his assessment. Although he understood that the investment was speculative and could be lost entirely, he distinguished that risk from receiving inaccurate information. A bank record showed his wire of just under $6 million to Theranos. Cross-examination established his extensive legal and investment experience, his introductions of several people and organizations to Theranos, and his opportunity to request additional information from the company. Before testimony, the court deferred disputes concerning Mosley's later emails and the proposed scope of Roger Parloff's testimony.