that a court did not rely upon them would be unnecessary. If a judge did consider outside evidence but mistakenly failed to convert the motion to one for summary judgment, this error would likely be evident on the face oRthe opinion, see, e.g., Fonte v. Bd. of Managers of Continental Towers Condominium, 848 F.2d 24, 25 (2d Cir.1988) (noting that district court's “unexplained reference” to factual matters not contained in complaint suggested that court had considered evidence outside pleadings when adjudicating Rule 12(b)(6) motion). 6 . The Fourth Circuit, which has adopted the Second Circuit’s standard for defining judicial documents, has reached a similar outcome in at least one case. See In re Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 94-2254, 94-2341, 1995 WL 541623, at *4 (4th Cir. Sep. 13, 1995) (<HOLDING>). This decision, however, predates Lugosch and
holding that it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint holding that documents integral to the complaint are properly considered on a motion to dismiss holding that 1 the complaint is deemed to include any documents incorporated in it by reference and any document upon which it solely relies and which is integral to the complaint and that the court may consider such documents on a motion to dismiss pursuant to fedrcivp 12b6 holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable holding that documents filed with rule 12b6 motion to dismiss are not judicial documents because they do not play any role in the adjudicative process