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

Opinion:
McWILLIAMS v. SHEPARD et al.
No. 7942.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued March 10, 1942.
Decided April 6, 1942.
Samuel J. McWilliams, pro se.
Mr. Burton A. McGann, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and EDGERTON, Associate Justices.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court entered upon the verdict of a jury awarding $4,500 and $3,000, respectively, to Ruth Shepard, a minor, and George Shepard, her father, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision alleged to have been caused by the negligence of appellant. Appellant is a resident of the District of Columbia. Appellees are residents of Connecticut. The accident occurred in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Appellant was driving his own car. Appellee Ruth Shepard was a guest rider in a car driven by a resident of Plymouth. The collision occurred on North Russell Street at the intersection of a driveway from a public parking lot and that street. The car in which appellee was riding was proceeding west along North Russell Street, which at the point of collision is approximately 24 feet wide. The evidence as to how the accident happened is conflicting. That of the appellant is that he drove out of the parking lot in a northerly direction onto North Russell Street; that he stopped at the curb and looked in both directions; that he saw no cars approaching; that he then went forward in second gear at about 5 or 6 miles an hour; that when he was about 8 feet into the street the car in which appellee was riding came around a curve from the east traveling at about 35 or 40 miles an hour; that it veered slightly to the north, but did not slacken its speed; that the two cars collided, the car in which appellee was riding being thrown into a telephone pole on the north curb line of the street. Appellee’s evidence was to the effect that the car in which she was riding proceeded about 15 miles an hour in a westerly direction along North Russell Street toward the intersection of the street and the parking lot driveway; that she was watching out and as she approached the intersection there was no car in view; that the collision occurred in the middle of the intersection; and that she was thrown out of the car and taken away in an unconscious condition.
Another witness, who was on the street close to the point, of collision, said: “I saw this big car [appellant’s car] coming up South Russell Street, and turned through the Parking Space; I saw the Curtin car [the car in which appellee was riding] coming up North Russell-Street, and in an instant they both came together. * * * As near as I can tell, one was coming up South Russell Street and the other was coming through the Parking Space, and came together about the middle of the intersection; he [appellant] hit her. I could see the Curtin car wave over and bang into the post; if the post wasn’t there it would have tipped over.”
Another witness testified that appellant’s car was as nearly as he could judge traveling 10 or 12 miles an hour. Still another placed his speed at 5 or 6 miles an hour. Appellant’s car struck the car in which appellee was riding at the rear left hand side.
The Massachusetts law requires the driver of a motor vehicle approaching an intersection to grant the right-of-way to a vehicle which has already entered an intersection, and also to grant the right-of-way to a vehicle entering from the right at approximately the same time. On this appeal, the question is whether the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a directed verdict and in denying appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict and judgment and enter judgment for the defendant. Judge Pine, who heard the case, denied the motions, on the ground that where, by reason of a conflict in the testimony, there is uncertainty as to the existence of negligence, the question is one to be settled by the jury. He thought there was such conflict. This is a correct statement of the law. On a motion for a directed verdict, if fair minded men may honestly draw different conclusions as to the existence or non-existence of the negligence charged, the question is not one of law for the court but of fact for the jury. Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90, 94, 50 S.Ct. 231, 74 L.Ed. 720. In this case there was an unquestioned conflict in the testimony. There was in addition the damaged condition of appellee’s car caused by the impact. "We agree with the trial judge that there was enough to take the case to the jury. Boaze v. Windridge & Handy, 70 App.D.C. 24, 102 F.2d 628.
The refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict was within the court’s discretion. Frye v. Lyon, 55 App.D.C. 48, 299 F. 926. Ordinarily, the motion ought not to be granted except where the evidence is so one-sided as to leave no room for doubt, and where the evidence is conflicting, it is not error to deny the motion. Pinn v. Lawson, 63 App.D.C. 370, 72 F.2d 742.
Affirmed.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0