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 appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
Frank J. DUFFY, Petitioner, v. Honorable Richard A. DIER, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, and United States of America, Respondents. NORTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. Honorable Richard A. DIER, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, and United States of America, Respondents.
Nos. 72-1451, 72-1452.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 7, 1972.
Decided Aug. 17, 1972.
James W. R. Brown, Omaha, Neb., for petitioners.
Sidney M. Glazer, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondents.
Before LAY, HEANEY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
LAY, Circuit Judge.
Petitioners Frank J. Duffy and Northern Natural Gas Company seek a writ of mandamus against the Honorable Richard A. Dier, United States District Judge, District of Nebraska, to vacate an order requiring Duffy to answer certain questions and produce certain documents before a Grand Jury convened in Omaha, Nebraska. Duffy is designated as Senior Attorney employed as house counsel for Northern Natural Gas in Omaha. Pursuant to his employment as counsel Duffy made an investigation concerning alleged acts of criminal misconduct by one or more employees of Northern Natural Gas Company in connection with the construction of a pipeline in Chicago, Illinois. Duffy voluntarily appeared before the Grand Jury on July 21, 1972. The government propounded to Duffy certain questions seeking the names of any informants and information obtained from these informants. The government also issued a subpoena duces tecum for Northern Natural to produce, inter alia :
“Memoranda reflecting interview with informants, reports, correspondence sent and received, affidavits and statements of informants, other documents prepared and compiled in connection with an investigation conducted by Frank Duffy and other personnel of company with respect to payments of money channeled through Rochester, Goodell, Moldovan & Spain Engineers, Inc. in connection with the construction and the acquisition of premises and rights of way for the construction of the so-called ‘Eight Inch Chicago Pipeline.’ ”
Duffy refused to answer any questions or to produce the above documents on the ground that such information is protected either under the attorney-client privilege or its production would violate the “work product” of Duffy acting as an attorney on Northern’s behalf.
On the same morning that Duffy refused to answer and while the Grand Jury was still in session Judge Dier heard arguments on the matter and ordered Duffy to testify as to all matters not otherwise protected within the traditional attorney-client privilege. His oral order was later embodied in a written order which reads in part as follows:
“Witness, Frank J. Duffy, must answer responsively before the Grand Jury any and all questions relating to the identity of informants contacted by him and information furnished by such informants with respect to matters under inquiry by the Grand Jury, and other details of his activity as an investigator.”
Duffy and Northern Natural immediately filed a notice of appeal and alternatively sought a writ of mandamus. This court dismissed the appeal as being interlocutory on July 27, 1972. See United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 91 S.Ct. 1580, 29 L.Ed.2d 85 (1971); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940). We set an immediate hearing before a three-judge panel on the petition for mandamus. Upon review of all of the proceedings, the nature of the order and the authorities cited, we deny issuance of the writ. We find that the issuance of the writ would be inappropriate in the present case.
A writ of mandamus should issue only in extraordinary proceedings. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 107, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967); Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 260, 67 S.Ct. 1558, 91 L.Ed. 2041 (1947). It should not be used as a substitute for interlocutory appeal. Ex parte Fahey, supra; Roche v. Evaporated Milk Association, 319 U.S. 21, 26, 63 S.Ct. 938, 87 L.Ed. 1185 (1943). This is especially true in criminal cases. See Will v. United States, supra. A writ should be issued only where the court has usurped its power or abused its discretion. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 110, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964); Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383, 74 S.Ct. 145, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953).
The court clearly had the power to order disclosure of the names of the informants Duffy interviewed. Cf. Edgar v. Finley, 312 F.2d 533, 535-536 (8 Cir. 1963); McCall v. Overseas Tankship Corporation, 16 F.R.D. 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1954); 4 Moore, Federal Practice, § 26.57[2] at 26-202 (2d ed. 1971); Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2013, at 105 (1970). Beyond this the record is actually silent as to what specific files, documents or memoranda the petitioner seeks to protect or the circumstances under which any such records were obtained. In this sense it is argued that the district court’s order is overly broad. We must agree. However, this alone does not justify this court to issue a writ of mandamus when the record fails to demonstrate the specific circumstances under which the attorney-client privilege or the work product rule may or may not apply. Petitioners have the burden to demonstrate that such information is protected and that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384, 74 S.Ct. 145, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953). Without specific facts we are faced with an overly broad objection which may or may not apply to an overly broad order. As the Supreme Court emphasized in Will, the issuance of mandamus must be accompanied by “findings of fact by the issuing court and some statement of the court’s legal reasoning.” Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 107, 88 S.Ct. 269, 280, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967). Such findings and conclusions cannot be made upon the basis of the present cryptic record and to that extent mandamus is not a proper remedy. See Thornton v. Corcoran, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 232, 407 F.2d 695, 698 (1969).
For the reasons discussed the writ of mandamus is denied.
. Recent courts have consistently held that challenges (involving Fifth Amendment privileges) to orders compelling witnesses to testify before grand juries must await appellate review following a contempt citation. United States v. Anderson, 464 F.2d 1390 (D.C.Cir.1972); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 450 F.2d 199, 201 (3 Cir. 1971); cf. United States v. Fried, 386 F.2d 691, 695 (2 Cir. 1967).
. We sense that much of the inadequacy of the record is born from Duffy’s refusal to disclose the informants’ names. Assuming Duffy will now disclose the informants’ names, then a specific record can be made as to whether any informants are in fact corporate employees as to whom the attorney-client privilege might possibly apply (cf. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7 Cir. 1970), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 400 U.S. 348, 91 S.Ct. 479, 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971). Additionally, if they are not corporate employees the district court will then specifically have an opportunity to determine whether the information is part of the attorney’s work product, whether the work product rule is applicable to the proceedings involved, and if so, whether the government has established good cause to obtain the information from the attorney’s files. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510, 67 S.Ct. 385, 393, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), where the Court observed:
“Not even the most liberal of discovery theories can justify unwarranted inquiries into the files and the mental impressions of an attorney.
“Historically, a lawyer is an officer of the court and is bound to work for the advancement of justice while faithfully protecting the rightful interests of his clients. In performing his various duties, however, it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel.”
The district court indicated that it felt the attorney’s files were subject to disclosure since he was acting as an investigator. This observation has little relevance if in fact the information was gathered by Duffy from other employees as an attorney. Nor would it have any bearing on the issue of “good cause” assuming the work product rule applies. See Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d at 492.
. The government urges that there may be a statute of limitations problem to obtain indictments. However, they deny that this factor is sufficient for this court to consider this matter as “extraordinary” to justify the issuance of the extraordinary writ.

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

Choices:

Answer: 1