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.

BRATTON, Circuit Judge.
These are three conventional pollution cases to recover damages to land, livestock, and poultry arising out of failure to confine salt water and oil having their source in the operation of oil wells in the Oxford Oil Pool in Sumner County, Kansas. Recoupment of outlays for certain expenses and recovery of punitive •damages were also sought. D. S. Donley instituted one of the actions; M. Eugene Donley and Bessie E. Donley instituted •one; and Neil Vann instituted one. La Verne H. Christopher and others were •defendants. The defendants denied the •alleged pollutive action on their part; pleaded that if pollution existed with •damaging results to plaintiffs it was •caused by persons other than the defendants ; pleaded the statute of limitations; and pleaded failure of plaintiffs to mitigate their damages. The cases were consolidated for trial; were tried to a jury; a verdict for the defendants was returned in each case; judgment was entered for the defendants in each case. An appeal was perfected in each case; the cases were brought here on a single record; and were briefed and argued together.
The action of the court in admitting in evidence a certain map is challenged. The pretrial order contained a provision that exhibits not offered at the conference or made available to opposing •counsel within ten days prior to the trial would not be received in evidence, except by proper rebuttal, by consent of all parties, by order of the court, or to prevent •manifest injustice. The map was not •offered at the pretrial conference, but it was made available to the attorney for plaintiffs and an effort was exerted to Lave him examine it approximately three weeks prior to the trial. That constituted compliance with the pretrial order.
The action of the court in admitting the map in evidence is challenged on the further ground that it contained notes and data highly prejudicial to plaintiffs without any basis therefor being shown in the evidence. The map was prepared by a consulting engineer or under his direction for use in the trial of the cases and it was offered in evidence in connection with the testimony being given by him. It disclosed the Oxford Pool, the location of wells therein, the location of the premises owned by plaintiff D. S. Donley, and the location of the premises owned by plaintiffs M. Eugene Donley and Bessie E. Donley. The witness testified that in 1927 he became an oil field hand in the Winfield Pool about ten miles from the Oxford Pool; that he was seventeen years of age at the time; that during the intervening years he became familiar with the practices prevailing in the particular area involved in this litigation relating to the drilling and plugging of wells; that he had examined the abandonment and plugging records in the offices of the Corporation Commission of Kansas; that dots on the map with red circles around them represented wells drilled and plugged prior to the beginning of 1938; that dots with oblique lines drawn through them represented wells which were abandoned and plugged after 1938; and that dots without circles or lines represented wells then presently producing. He further testified that his check of the records together with his own background experience led him to the conclusion that the wells plugged prior .to 1938 were inadequately and poorly plugged. He further testified in summary the substance of the official records in respect to the manner in which a well referred to as the Sheeks well had been plugged; and he stated the substance of the official records in respect to the manner in which one well had been plugged, and the flow of salt water therefrom afterwards. A marginal note in pencil stated in substance that the map disclosed seven wells showing salt water visibly at the surface; twenty-four wells which the official records revealed inadequate plugging procedures similar to that at the Sheeks well; three wells inadequately plugged but better than the Sheeks well; and forty-five wells plugged prior to 1936. Numerous objections were interposed to the admission of the map, the substance of which was that no showing had been made of relationship between the early wells and the damage to plaintiffs; and that the map was incompetent unless and until it was shown that wells other than those of the defendants were polluting the under-flow. The map was admissible as preliminary background material for the purpose of depicting in. graphic form the testimony relating to the records in the office of the Corporation Commission and in appraising the expert testimony respecting the source of the oil and salt water which produced the polluting effect resulting in damage to the plaintiffs. Cf. National Alfalfa Dehydrating & Milling Co. v. Sorensen, 8 Cir., 220 F.2d 858.
Complaint is made that original records of the Corporation Commission-including correspondence — were produced in court and made available for use of the parties. The argument is that the records were not officially certified or verified in respect to authenticity. The records were produced in response to a suggestion of the attorney for plaintiffs that he desired them for use in cross-examination. When they were produced, no objection was made respecting the absence of a certificate of authenticity or verification. And there is no suggestion now that they did not come' from the offices of the Corporation Commission.* Having failed to object to the records at the time of their production and tender, the contention at this belated juncture comes too late.
One further contention merits consideration. It is that the court erroneously permitted the introduction of evidence relating to custom and usage in the handling of salt water in wells drilled as far back as 1927 without any showing that such wells actually leaked salt water which contributed to the damage of plaintiffs. The primary issue of fact on which the cases turned was the source of the salt water and oil which caused pollution with damaging effect to plaintiffs. That issue was controverted throughout the trial. The theory of plaintiffs was that under-flow of salt water and oil from the wells of the defendants was the source of the pollution. The theory of defendants was that the source of the under-flow was wells of others. The evidence of custom and usage in respect to the handling of salt water and oil as far back as 1927 was admissible as circumstances tending to throw light upon the source from which the damaging under-flow came. The length of time intervening between the time of the custom and usage in the earlier years and the damage suffered by plaintiffs went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
The judgments are severally.
Affirmed.

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: 4