Ameritrade to provide last sales information from any and all exchanges or market makers, and both of which alleged ly contained disclaimers regarding the completeness or accuracy of the information provided. Copies of the contracts are attached to Ameritrade’s brief, but have not been authenticated and filed as required by NELR 7.1(a)(2). Second, even though Green does not contest the accuracy of the documents that are attached to Ameritrade’s brief, it appears that the court should not consider such documents without first converting Ameritrade’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and giving the parties a reasonable opportunity to present all pertinent evidentiary materials, as required by Rule 12(b). See, e.g., Gibb v. Scott, 958 F.2d 814, 816 (8th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Bennett v. Berg, 685 F.2d 1053, 1056 (8th
holding that hearing requirement for summary judgment motions is satisfied by courts review of documents submitted by parties holding that only motions filed under 12b6 can be converted to a summary judgment motion holding that motions to dismiss should have been converted into motions for summary judgment where the district court relied upon contract documents submitted by the defendant holding that although the defendant filed a number of motions because the original trial date never changed as a result of those motions no delay could be attributed to the motions holding that the trial court grants or denies motions for summary judgment on the basis of what is contained in the motions for summary judgment and the responses thereto