Day 31 - November 10, 2021

Before the jury entered, the parties disputed whether a defense argument based on missing laboratory information system data would open the door to evidence explaining the system's unavailability. The court made no final determination, and the defense agreed to provide notice by 4:00 p.m. the next day. On cross-examination, laboratory director Kingshuk Das testified that his review of historical quality-control data revealed deficiencies that should have been identified earlier. He said Holmes supported voiding Edison 3.5 results and shutting down microbiology testing, but on redirect testified that she controlled laboratory resources and disagreed with attributing the voided results to the instrument rather than quality systems. On recross, Das confirmed that counsel prepared two CMS letters he signed and said Holmes lacked experience in laboratory operations, validation, and quality-control programs. Investor Alan Eisenman then described representations about Theranos's technology, pharmaceutical relationships, revenue, an IPO, cartridge demand, and cash flow that informed his investments. He testified that later publicity and company communications led him to invest another $99,990 in 2013, while a subsequent UBS report conflicted with his understanding and prompted unsuccessful requests for information and liquidity. On cross-examination, Eisenman acknowledged contractual warnings about speculative projections, limited operating history, an absent public market, and the possibility of total loss, while maintaining that Holmes had described an intended IPO. The court recessed testimony until November 15 and set further scheduling discussions as the government approached the end of its case.