Task: songer_genresp2

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.
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 is to determine the nature of the second listed respondent. If there are more than two respondents and at least one of the additional respondents has a different general category from the first respondent, then consider the first respondent with a different general category to be the second respondent.

PER CURIAM.
As a result of the proposed building of the Cannelton Dam on the Ohio River, requiring the flooding of certain lands in Meade County, Kentucky, plaintiff-appellee, United States of America, filed condemnation suits for certain permanent and temporary flowage easements over two tracts of farmland owned by defendants-appellants, all of whom are members of the Bosley family. In their appeal the Bosleys protest vehemently the inadequacy of the condemnation awards arrived at by a jury after trial before the District Judge. The jury awards, however, were clearly within the values set by the expert testimony which had been presented to the jury by the disputing parties.
The only appellate issue of substance pertains to the District Judge’s rulings striking the entire testimony of one of the two expert witnesses produced at trial by defendants-appellants and refusing to allow him to be recalled for further examination on the ground that his testimony had demonstrated his disqualification.
A review of this record indicates that the witness who was excluded was a real estate man who had intimate familiarity with the sale of farm properties in Meade County. He testified without any dispute on this record that he was a licensed real estate dealer under the laws of the state and had been such for thirteen years, that his firm sold 90% of the properties sold in the area in which the farm was located, and that he had been admitted as a member of the National Association of Real Estate Appraisers. On these and other facts before him, the District Judge ruled that this witness did qualify as an expert for purposes of testifying as to condemnation values and allowed appellants’ counsel to examine him.
In the course of this examination, it rapidly developed that however familiar with real estate sales and appraisal work this witness may have been, he was quite unfamiliar with the technicalities of expert testimony pertaining to value in a federal condemnation case. The District Judge exhibited considerable patience in educating the witness as to the proper form which his testimony should follow. On ascertaining, however, that he had taken into account one sale dated after the date of the filing of this condemnation case, the District Judge ruled the witness disqualified, refused to allow him to be examined further, and told the jury to disregard his testimony completely.
There is no automatic rule which holds that such testimony serves to disqualify an expert witness. Indeed, there is no absolute rule which forbids taking subsequent sales into account, depending upon the circumstances concerned. United States v. 63.04 Acres of Land, 245 F.2d 140, 144 (2d Cir. 1957); United States v. Meadowbrook Club, 259 F.2d 41, 46 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 358 U.S. 921, 79 S.Ct. 290, 3 L.Ed.2d 239 (1958); Knollman v. United States, 214 F.2d 106, 109 (6th Cir. 1954).
Although we recognize the difficulty which confronted the District Judge, on the total record we conclude that it was an abuse of discretion to deprive appellants of testimony of one of their two expert witnesses, and that it may have prejudiced the result.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Question: What is the nature of the second listed respondent whose detailed code is not identical to the code for the first listed respondent?
A. private business (including criminal enterprises)
B. private organization or association
C. federal government (including DC)
D. sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
E. state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
F. government - level not ascertained
G. natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
H. miscellaneous
I. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: I