... and judgments shall be entered chronologically in the civil docket.... These entries ... shall show ... the substance of each order or judgment of the court....” We have held that a judgment does not satisfy Rule 58 if “the inclusion of legal reasoning and authority” reaches the point of making “an order into a combined decision and order.” Diamond, 770 F.2d at 230 n. 10. We have also held, however, that a “single document that disposes of all remaining claims can satisfy Rule 58 so long as it is sufficiently terse.” Kidd v. District of Columbia, 206 F.3d 35, 37 (D.C.Cir.2000). There is no doubt that if the twelve pages issued by the district court in this case were regarded as one document, that document would not satisfy the requirements of Rule 58. See Haynes, 158 F.3d at 1331 (<HOLDING>). There is also no doubt that if the twelfth
holding that in connection with a motion to dismiss the court may consider a document not attached to the pleadings where the plaintiffs claim depends on the contents of a document the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint holding that a threepage memorandum opinion  order containing the district courts reasoning and case citations failed to comply with the separate document requirement holding the separate document rule violated when the alleged judgment was included with the memorandum and order of the court holding that an order dismissing the case did not satisfy rule 58s separate document requirement because the order was never entered as a separate document recognizing that incorporated document containing arbitration clause is not necessarily required to be attached to the contract