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:
BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Jerome DOFF, Appellee.
No. 79-3011.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 4, 1980.
Decided Jan. 30, 1981.
Timothy S. Harris, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Eric F. Edmunds, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief; John G. Wigmore, Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for appellee.
Before GIBSON, SNEED and TANG, Circuit Judges.
Honorable Floyd R. Gibson, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
SNEED, Circuit Judge:
Jerome Doff appeals from a contempt order entered against him for failing to answer interrogatories propounded by Brunswick. He contends that the district court abused its discretion because he answered some interrogatories to the best of his ability and, as to the others, he validly invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege not to incriminate himself. Brunswick, on the other hand, argues that Doff waived his Fifth Amendment privilege because (1) the claim was untimely raised; (2) Doff failed properly to support his claim below; and (3) Doff initially answered the interrogatories. Brunswick further contends that the district court properly rejected Doff’s excuse that he could not answer further because his records had been stolen.
I.
Fifth Amendment Claim
We need address only the second of Brunswick’s claims with respect to Doff’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege because, if correct as to it, the issue whether Doff has waived his privilege in one manner or another is irrelevant. We hold that Doff did fail properly to support his claim below. We do so on the basis that the privilege normally is not asserted properly by merely declaring that an answer will incriminate. It is not necessary, of course, that the person to whom the question has been put establish the precise manner in which he will incriminate himself by responding. This would make the privilege useless. As the Supreme Court said in Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486-87, 71 S.Ct. 814, 818, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951):
To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.
Doff failed to meet this modest standard.
Interrogatories 30, 32, and 37 were directed specifically at what assets, if any, were owned by Doff. His initial answers left much to be desired in terms of specificity and made reasonable the district court’s order that additional answers be provided. The invocation of the privilege by Doff with respect to providing additional answers was accompanied by nothing other than a bald assertion of the privilege. In no way does it appear that more responsive answers would incriminate Doff. That such answers might assist Brunswick in collecting the amount of its debt does not amount to incrimination within the scope of the privilege. A debtor such as Doff cannot conceal such assets as he might own merely by uttering the incantation, “I hereby invoke the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and thus refuse to answer this interrogatory on the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me.” Appendix B, Appellee’s Brief 52-54. It is not evident from the setting in which the questions were asked that responsive answers or explanations would incriminate. Cf. United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235 (9th Cir. 1980).
Appellant argues strongly that, whatever might be the propriety of his invocation of the privilege with respect to interrogatories 30, 32, and 37, the refusal to answer interrogatory 69 on the grounds of the privilege was proper. That interrogatory asked whether Doff had filed federal and state income tax returns for the years 1971 through 1975, the date any such returns were filed, and the amount of adjusted gross income reported thereon. On the record before us we see no way in which answers to this interrogatory would tend to incriminate. Again a distinction between the unpleasantness of possibly revealing assets to a creditor and the tendency to incriminate within the meaning of the privilege must be drawn. While the possibility of the first is evident on this record, the second is not. Even responses indicating no returns had been filed would not on this record incriminate and, incidentally, would not be inconsistent necessarily with Doff's responses to interrogatories 30, 32, and 37.
We recognize that in cases such as this the need of the court to ascertain the legitimacy of a claim of the Fifth Amendment privilege exists in a state of tension with the need of the claimant to remain silent. The latter need must always weigh heavily in the balance, but it cannot be permitted to weigh so heavily as to relieve the court of its duty to determine the legitimacy of the claim. This would be the result were we to hold that a mere Fifth Amendment privilege incantation is sufficient. See United States v. Neff, supra at 1240.
II.
Adequacy of Doff’s Answers
The district court also appears not to have been impressed by the answers supplied to interrogatories 12,15, and 22 which sought information concerning the amounts and sources of various types of income of Doff. Nor need it have been inasmuch as Doff’s answers indicated that the amounts were insubstantial or “minimal” and that, in any event, his records had been stolen from his residence. Such responses are not marked with badges of candor.
III.
The Absence of Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
Our review in this case has been hampered somewhat by the absence of any findings of facts or conclusions of law prepared by the trial court. Such findings and conclusions are not required by Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., in a proceeding such as this which was commenced by a motion by Brunswick for an order of contempt, a motion not embraced by Rule 41(b), Fed.R. Civ.P. Nonetheless, to require proper findings and conclusions is within the power of this court when a lower court has entered a contempt order. See Sanders v. Monsanto Co., 574 F.2d 198, 200 (5th Cir. 1978). Consideration was given to remanding for the preparation of findings and conclusions in this case. Our decision to affirm without a remand is based on the high level of contumacy on the part of Doff that this record reflects. Under less compelling circumstances a remand clearly would have been desirable.
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: 1