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:
COPPERSTATE SUPPLY CO., a division of Anderson Air Activities, Inc., and John B. Marron, Appellants, v. Harley J. FISHER et al., Appellees.
No. 25246.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 30, 1971.
John B. Marron (argued), of Gorodezky, Marron & Diamond, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellants.
George F. Senner, Jr. (argued), of Cavness, DeRose & Senner, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellees.
Before CHAMBERS and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, District Judge.
Honorable William M. Byrne, Senior United States District Judge, Central District of California, sitting by designation.
JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge.
Appellees Fisher, were granted a discharge in bankruptcy on February 10, 1969. On June 25, 1969, the estate was reopened to determine whether appellants be permanently enjoined from proceeding against the bankrupts in an Arizona Superior Court action to recover on a judgment obtained on May 22, 1968, and renewed on May 26, 1969. ' The court below, adopting the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, granted the injunction. Appellants, here, object to that court’s findings and to its exercise of discretion in granting the injunction. Finding no error, we affirm.
Appellants’ objections pose two issues: (1) whether appellant Copperstate had sufficient notice of the earlier bankruptcy proceedings for their debt to be affected by the discharge; (2) whether sufficient circumstances were present to justify the court’s exercise of discretion in granting an injunction of state proceedings.
We note that recent changes in the law now give the bankruptcy court general jurisdiction to determine the effect of a discharge. Act of October 19, 1970, Public Law No. 91-467, 84 Stat. 990, amending § 2(a) (12) of the Bankruptcy Act, 52 Stat. 840, 843 [11 U.S.C. § 11(a) (12)]. However the amendment applies only to bankruptcy cases filed after December 18, 1970. Since this case was filed before that time, the prior law obtains.
Notice
The court below exercised its ancillary jurisdiction to protect its earlier decree of discharge. For the court to protect its decree, however, the debt in question must be affected by that discharge.
The Bankruptcy Act excepts from the discharge of a bankruptcy proceeding those debts which “have not been duly scheduled in time for. proof and allowance.” 11 U.S.C. § 35 (1970). Not within this exception, however, are the debts of creditors who “had notice or actual knowledge of the proceedings in bankruptcy.” Id.
The court below adopted the referee’s findings that Copperstate had received both actual and constructive notice. Appellants challenge these findings. They deny actual notice. They also argue the inadequacy of any notice in that the petition for bankruptcy listed them as involved in litigation with the appellees and not specifically as creditors.
Our review of the record discloses substantial support for the finding of actual notice or knowledge. The testimony of several witnesses indicates that appellants received notice of the bankruptcy from as many as four different sources. While appellants find fault with some of the testimony, their objections do no more than establish a conflict in the evidence. The finding of actual notice or knowledge was not “clearly erroneous.” Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 52(a).
“Unusual Circumstances”
Appellants also contend that the record of the proceedings held before the referee in bankruptcy does not show circumstances sufficient to warrant the injunction of state court proceedings. They rely on the long-standing rule that a bankruptcy court merely determines the right to a discharge, and not the effect thereof. By this rule, the effect of a bankruptcy discharge is ordinarily adjudicated in the non-bankruptcy forum when the creditor sues on a debt and bankruptcy is raised as a defense. Hilton Credit Corp. v. Jaggli (9 Cir. 1966) 366 F.2d 793, 794; Vol. la Collier on Bankruptcy § 17.28 at 1726 (14th ed.). Adjudication of the effect of the discharge is permitted, however, where “unusual circumstances” such as where the remedy in the non-bankruptcy forum is inadequate, or where the pursuit of that remedy involves disproportionate trouble, embarrassment, expense, or the possible loss of employment. Hilton Credit Corp. v. Jaggli, supra. See Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 241-242, 54 S.Ct. 695, 78 L.Ed. 1230 (1934). The determination of when such circumstances exist is within the sound discretion of the bankruptcy court. See California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Prod. (9 Cir. 1955) 228 F.2d 520, 523.
Applying the law of Local Loan and Hilton, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion. The evidence is sufficient to support a finding of harassment. In addition to obtaining the judgments against the appellees, appellants have filed several garnishments on appellees’ employers, without notice to appellees. In doing so they may not only have tied up appellees’ wages; they may also have endangered appellees’ employment. We hold that this evidence of harassment reasonably constitutes “unusual circumstances” sufficient to warrant an injunction of state proceedings.
The judgment is affirmed.

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: 2