balancing test, we do not address whether .the common law mandates the responsible official to produce such summaries. However, we note that the Appellate Division’s assumption that the responsible official is required to provide summaries is inconsistent with our understanding that neither the Right-to-Know Law nor the common law generally has been interpreted to impose an affirmative obligation on custodians of records to provide summaries of either Right-to-Know-Law or common-law documents. See N.J.S.A. 47:lA-2 (“Every citizen of this State * * * shall have the right to inspect [public] records * * *, to copy such records by hand, and * * * to purchase copies of such records.”); Asbury Park Press, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Health, 233 N.J.Super. 375, 381, 558 A.2d 1363 (App.Div.) (<HOLDING>), certif. denied, 117 N.J. 646, 569 A.2d 1344
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 summary analysis in form of spread sheet  was not righttoknowlaw document holding that evidence in an inadmissible form may be considered at the summary judgment stage as long as the evidence is submitted in an admissible form at trial holding that unrebutted evidence can and should form the basis for summary judgment 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