Task: songer_r_bus

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.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

PER CURIAM.
This is a petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board directing the reinstatement with back pay of an employee found to have 'been discrimina-torily discharged and finding an unfair labor practice in a question asked of another employee. The respondent has filed answer asking that the order be set aside because not supported by substantial evidence. The facts are set forth at length in the intermediate report of the trial examiner and the decision of the Board and may be briefly stated. Attempt was made early in 1949 to unionize certain employees of respondent. Respondent was opposed to unionization and engaged in certain unfair labor practices and discriminatorily discharged a number of employees. Complaint was made of this to the Board and a charge based thereon was filed by it. On January 18, 1951, a settlement agreement was entered into under which respondent reinstated a number of employees with back pay amounting to $10,000 and posted notices in the usual form.' On April 10, 1951, the Regional Director informed respondent that he was “satisfied that full compliance had been carried out”. On April 24, 1951, the Union filed against respondent the charges here involved, alleging the discriminatory discharge of employees Hutto and Livingston in December preceding the settlement and the questioning of the employee Anderson the following February. The Board dismissed the charge as to Livingston but sustained it as to the discharge of Hutto and the questioning of Anderson.
The evidence shows that Hutto, an employee in respondent’s shop, prevailed upon Livingston, an employee in its office, to furnish him information from the files in the office which he desired to use against respondent in the hearing of the charge which was then pending against it. The Board held that the conduct of Livingston in furnishing this information from the company’s files was sufficient ground for his discharge. "We think that the same was true of the conduct of Hutto who induced Livingston to furnish it. We find nothing in the evidence to warrant a finding that respondent discharged Hutto for any other reason or that the ground given for his discharge was not the true one. Hutto was discharged because he had been engaged in improperly abstracting information from the company’s private files to use against it. The fact that he intended to use the information in a labor hearing did not justify what he did nor preclude respondent from discharging him for conduct which any employer would have resented whether connected with union activity or not. Cf. Joanna Cotton Mills Co. v. N. L. R. B., 4 Cir., 176 F.2d 749, 751.
As to the questioning of Anderson, it appears that there was no more to this than that about a month after the settlement had been agreed upon the personnel officer of respondent made a casual inquiry of an employee as to how a union meeting had come out. The meeting was a public one and there was nothing to indicate that respondent was attempting to spy on the union or to intimidate its members. This isolated incident furnished no ground for the finding of an unfair labor practice, particularly in view of the settlement so recently agreed upon by the parties and the posting of notices pursuant to the agreement. N. L. R. B. v. Hart Cotton Mills, 4 Cir., 190 F.2d 964; N. L. R. B. v. Arthur Winer, Inc., 7 Cir., 194 F.2d 370; N. L. R. B. v. Hinde & Dauch Paper Co., 4 Cir., 171 F.2d 240; N. L. R. B. v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 4 Cir., 114 F.2d 796, 802-803; Martel Mills Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 4 Cir., 114 F.2d 624.
For the reasons stated, the petition for enforcement will be denied and the order of the Board will be set aside.
Enforcement denied.
Order set aside.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 1