appeal”). Because of that conclusion, we do not reach the issue whether the Right-to-Know Law requires the responsible official to provide summaries or statistical analyses of government documents. Similarly, because we remand this case to the trial court to conduct the comm 89). Accordingly, the general rule is that public agencies are not required to produce new information even if the documents available under the Right-to-Know Law and the common law are unresponsive to a citizen’s inquiry. Nevertheless, we note that rigid adherence to that general rule might not necessarily be appropriate in all cases, and observe that the Appellate Division has ruled to that effect in Board of Education v. New Jersey Department of the Treasury, 279 N.J.Super. 489, 500, 502, 653 A.2d 589 (App.Div.) (<HOLDING>), leave to appeal granted, 142 N.J. 440, 663
holding that claimsinformation data for specific municipality or state agency constituted public records under righttoknow law and common law even though such data was not grouped by municipality or agency but rather was compiled into two groups  state and local holding that the state police is a state agency holding that various data tapes were owned or obtained by the agency even though they were neither created by agency employees nor  currently located on agency property because the firm that created the tapes acted on behalf of the agency in creating the tapes holding that the university of maryland law school was a state agency holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor