Task: songer_respond2_8_3

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the second listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous", specifically "fiduciary, executor, or trustee". Your task is to determine which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant.

ORDER
This is an appeal from the district court’s desegregation order for the Lansing, Michigan, elementary schools. This court earlier upheld the district court’s finding of liability for intentional segregation in NAACP v. Lansing Board of Education, 559 F.2d 1042 (6th Cir.), cert. den. 434 U.S. 997, 98 S.Ct. 635, 54 L.Ed.2d 491 (1977). This appeal was submitted to the Court on the briefs and oral arguments of counsel, and the Court has studied the record and is fully advised in the premises.
The Court is of the opinion that the scope of the district court’s remedy was not overly broad. The record discloses that the remedy is tailored to undo the violations of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights found by the district court. While the district court did not specifically make findings on the “incremental segregative effect” of these violations, we conclude that the remedy imposed was only “designed to redress” the effect of the violations found. Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 420, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977). The district court did not err in including first and second grade children in the desegregation remedy. Nor did the remedy violate the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. Brinkman v. Gilligan, 518 F.2d 853, 856 (6th Cir. 1975).
It is ORDERED that the judgment of the district court be, and it hereby is, affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the second listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous", specifically "fiduciary, executor, or trustee". Which of the following specific subcategories best describes the litigant?
A. trustee in bankruptcy - institution
B. trustee in bankruptcy - individual
C. executor or administrator of estate - institution
D. executor or administrator of estate - individual
E. trustees of private and charitable trusts - institution
F. trustee of private and charitable trust - individual
G. conservators, guardians and court appointed trustees for minors, mentally incompetent
H. other fiduciary or trustee
I. specific subcategory not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: G