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:
LIST v. NEW YORK CENT. R. CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
January 7, 1925.)
No. 1748.
Master and servant <§=>287(3) — Whether employee, injuring coemployee, was aoting within scope of employment, held-for jury.
In action under Massachusetts law for injuries to employee,- struck by waste thrown by other employee in direction of.waste basket, question whether other employee was acting within scope of his employment held for jury. Johnson, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
In Error to the' District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts; Peters, Judge."
Action by Marie Y. List against the New York Central Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Judgment'vacated,, verdict set aside, and case remanded, with directions.
Leo J. Kelly, of Boston, Mass., and Christopher J., Muldoon,. Jr., of Somerville, Mass. (John J. O’Hare and Kelly & Schumb, all of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Ralph A. Stewart, of Boston, Mass. (Herbert Schnare, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for defendant -in error.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit, Judges.
BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
This is a wpt of error-.from a judgment in favor of the. defendant in a personal injury suit, in which, under the laws of Massachusetts, the master is made responsible for the negligent acts of his servants within the scope of their employment. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence a verdict was directed for the defendant, upon which judgment was entered. This is the error complained of.
There is no question but that it could have been found that the plaintiff was injured, and that her injury was due to the negligent act of the defendant’s servant. The only question is whether there was evidence from which it could have been found that the servant, at the time in question, was acting within the scope of his employment.
The plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove that, at the time. she sustained her injury, she was at work for the defendant in one of' the rooms set apart for auditing its freight accounts; that her duties consisted in operating machines for punching and tabulating cards; that there were also employed in the same room five other girls and two men, Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr.' Roberts; that in the room there were four desks, four tabulating machines, two large card-sorting machines, and a large oblong table that Fitzgerald and Roberts worked at; that Fitzgerald was in charge of the room and. directed the work there carried on; that-Mr. Roberts’ duties consisted in doing tabulating work, assisting Mr. Fitzgerald, and in tidying the room; that it was customary for him to keep the tables and desks in order; that the work was of such a character as to produce waste material and refuse, ■ most of ■frhieh.eame from the punching.and tabulating machines; that eight or ten waste. baskets were provided for the purpose of taking cafe of the refuse and waste material, one of which was supposed, to be at each punching machine; that it had been customary for some time prior to the accident for some of the girls to eat their noon luncheon in the room; that it was' advanta-. geous to the conduct of work of the nature there- carried on that the desks and table-be kept clean and free from refuse; that on the day of the accident ■ some of ■ the girls took their luncheon in this room, but the • plaintiff went oiit to her noonday meal-; that thereafter she returned and resumed her work, and between- 2:30 and 3 o’clock was sitting at a-tabulating machine at the rear end of the room, engaged in her regular work; that about this time Fitzgerald and Roberts came into the room, and Fitzgerald, • seeing that there .was some orange peel,- papers, an orange, and other waste material-on the long table, which had been left there by the girls after their noon lunch, directed Roberts to clean up the table and remove the waste; that Roberts rolled up some of the material in a paper and threw it in the direction of a waste basket back of where the plaintiff was sitting; that the bundle missed the basket; that Roberts then picked up the orange and threw it in the direction of the same basket; and that, instead of going into the waste basket, it struck the plaintiff, causing the injury complained of.
From this evidence the jury, as reasonable men, might find that Fitzgerald had charge of the room, with authority to keep it in order; that it was advantageous to the work there being conducted that the desks and tables be kept cleared of waste; that Fitzgerald, in directing Roberts to clear away the waste, was acting within the scope of his authority; and that Roberts, in clearing it away, was not only performing his duty as directed, but that, had he not been acting at the time under the immediate direction of Fitzgerald, he could have been found to have been acting within the scope of his employment, as he was only performing a duty which he had customarily performed in the defendant’s service.
The judgment of the District Court is vacated, the verdict is set aside, and the ease is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion, with costs to the plaintiff in error.
JOHNSON, Circuit Judge, dissents.

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: 0