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:
DAVID ORGELL, INC., Appellant, v. GEARY’S STORES, INC.; Baccarat, Inc.; Buccelatti, Inc., and Ceralene, Inc., Defendants, and Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Inc., Appellees.
No. 79-3108.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 5, 1980.
Decided Jan. 19, 1981.
Bernard Reich, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Roy L. Shults, and Edward M. Medvene, Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Before CHAMBERS and TANG, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge.
Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
SOLOMON, District Judge.
David Orgell, Inc. (Orgell) appeals from a summary judgment for Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Inc. (Wedgwood). We affirm.
Orgell owns several retail stores which sell silver, china, and crystal in the Los Angeles area. Wedgwood sells china, dinnerware, and jasperware to retail stores in many parts of the world. Orgell’s principal competitor in Beverly Hills is Geary’s Stores, Inc. (Geary’s), one of Wedgwood’s customers. Orgell contends that Wedgwood refused to sell to Orgell as the result of a conspiracy between Wedgwood and Geary’s.
Wedgwood first refused to sell to Orgell in 1965. It again refused to sell to Orgell in 1968. In 1972, Orgell retained a well-known Los Angeles law firm which wrote Wedgwood that its refusal to sell to Orgell had antitrust implications. Wedgwood’s attorney denied that Orgell had any grounds for complaint. On at least two occasions in 1976 and 1977, Orgell requested the opportunity to buy the Wedgwood line, but both times Wedgwood refused to sell.
On April 16, 1978, Orgell filed this action in the district court. It alleged that Wedgwood together with Geary’s had violated Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 26, and Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
Wedgwood filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion on the ground that Orgell had not “commenced suit within four years after the cause of action accrued.” Section 4B of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15b.
In this appeal, Orgell concedes a four year statute of limitations but it contends that this period had not elapsed because each of Wedgwood’s refusals to sell was a separate antitrust violation.
In In re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution v. General Motors Corp., 591 F.2d 68 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 900, 100 S.Ct. 210, 62 L.Ed.2d 136 (1980), a manufacturer of air pollution control devices brought an action against several automobile manufacturers alleging a conspiracy to refuse to purchase the plaintiff’s product. The plaintiff filed its action more than four years after the initial refusal to deal but alleged that the statute of limitations did not apply because each subsequent refusal created a new cause of action. The court rejected that argument, stating:
Nothing in the record indicates other than that the 1964 decisions, as to AMF, were irrevocable, immutable, permanent and final. For this reason, all injury to AMF necessarily resulted from the 1964 rejection of the Smog Burner. Id. at 72.
Here, any injury to Orgell resulted from Wedgwood’s 1965 refusal to sell. Orgell’s subsequent requests “were forlorn inquiries by one all of whose reasonable hopes had been previously dashed.” Id. The district court’s order granting summary judgment stated, “each time Wedgwood repeated the refusal, it was a reaffirmation of the original decision not to deal with the plaintiff. Since the original refusal pursuant to the alleged conspiracy occurred over a dozen years ago, this action is time-barred by the four year statute of limitations.” We agree.
The district court’s order granting summary judgment on the ground that Orgell’s action is time-barred 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: 1