There are no cases that address this exact factual scenario. However, the case law regarding the discovery of electronic data supports the conclusion that the debtor is entitled to the data in its Medisoft format. See, e.g.,
CP Solutions PTE, Ltd. v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 3:04cv2150(JBA)(WIG), 2006 WL 1272615, at *3 (D.Conn. Feb. 6, 2006) (defendants should have attached attachments to corresponding e-mails; defendants compelled to produce documents in readable, usable format to the extent documents were created or received in readable format); Hagenbuch v. 3B6 Sistemi Elettronici Industriali S.R.L.,
No. 04 C 3 109, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10838, at * 12 (N.D.Ill. March 8, 2006) (converting electronic media to TIFF documents was insufficient; defendant ordered to produce electronic media that plaintiff designated for copying). Cf.
Michigan First Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc., No. 05–74423, 2007 WL 4098213, at *2 (E.D.Mich. Nov. 16, 2007) (if relevant metadata, such as date and time of creation, did not appear in PDF copy, there would be value in producing metadata); The Scotts Co. LLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:06–CV–899, 2007 WL 1723509, at *4 (S.D. Ohio June 12, 2007) (court refused to decide issue of whether documents produced in hard copy form were not reasonably usable for purpose for which they were requested because parties had not fully exhausted extra-judicial efforts to resolve dispute).