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:
In re D. C. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION v. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY, Appellant.
No. 71-1248.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Oct. 30, 1972.
Decided Feb. 13, 1973.
Arthur B. Hanson, Washington, D. C., with whom W. Frank Stickle, Jr., and Ralph N. Albright, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Ted D. Kuemmerling, Asst. Corp. Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom C. Francis Murphy, Corp. Counsel, and Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee.
Before McGOWAN and MacKINNON, Circuit Judges, and WYZANSKI, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts.
Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 294(d).
WYZANSKI, District Judge:
December 27, 1968 the District of Columbia Human Relations Commission served upon the National Geographic Society a complaint alleging that the Commission had reasonable cause to believe that the Society was “discriminating against minority groups in its recruiting and hiring methods in ways which tend to deprive them of equal employment opportunities and such methods are in violation of Article 47 of the Police Regulations of the District of Columbia.” September 4, 1970 the Commission, by amendment to the complaint, particularized the alleged violation.
November 24, 1970 the Commission served upon the Society a subpena duces tecum to produce twelve categories of information as follows:
1. All employment applications received in the last six months, including, but not limited to, those for applicants hired, rejected or pending.
2. A payroll list or printout of all employees on staff as of the first pay period in October, including, but not limited to, record of gross salary earned by each employee.
3. Job descriptions for all jobs, including, but not limited to, salary levels for each job.
4. Description of qualifications required for all jobs, including, but not limited to, educational requirements.
5. Copies of all employment tests administered, test manuals and copies of any validation studies made in connection therewith.
6. Copies of all correspondence with any recruitment sources utilized during the past year.
7. A copy of each employment application form used.
8. A copy of all personnel policies promulgated or circulated to employees.
9. An organization chart indicating number of employees in each organizational unit.
10. A copy of any affirmative action plan, filed with any governmental agency.
11. All records relative to the establishment, scheduling and routing of the employees’ bus service to the Gaithersburg facility.
12. Copies of any and all union contracts affecting employees.
The Society moved the District Court to quash the subpena. February 22, 1971 the District Court, without opinion, entered an order denying the motion to quash. The Society appealed.
Appellant’s argument has five points.
1. The Society contends that Article 47 of the Police Regulations of the District of Columbia, pursuant to which the Commission acted, was not published in the compilation allegedly required by the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act, and for that reason was not in effect at the time the subpena was issued. There is no merit to the point. In the July 27, 1970 Special Edition of the District of Columbia Register the District Government incorporated in the District of Columbia Register the District of Columbia Police Regulations. Such regulations were and are available for purchase at the District of Columbia Publications Office. The Register thus adequately informed its readers of the full text. Congress never contemplated more, for D.C.Code, § 1-1504(a) (Supp. IV, 1971) provides that although in general the Register shall set forth the full text, “the Commissioner may in his discretion omit from the District of Columbia Register rules the publication of which would be unduly cumbersome, expensive, or otherwise inexpedient, if, in lieu of such publication, there is included in the Register a notice stating the general subject matter of any rule so omitted and stating the manner in which a copy of such rule may be obtained.” Full compliance with the conditions of this exception is not doubtful. But it is implausibly argued that the exception does not apply to regulations, such as these, which antedated the October 21, 1969 effective date of D.C.Code § 1-1507 (Supp. IV, 1971). There is nothing in the language or policy of the act to support such an argument, which seems to us frivolous, especially since the Society admits that without difficulty or delay it immediately procured the relevant regulations when it wanted them.
2. Next, the Society argues that the complaint, the amendment, and the subpena are invalid because the Commission failed to promulgate rules of procedure as required by the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act. However, April 15, 1971 the Commission promulgated and published rules of procedure. See 8 D.C.R.R. 1.1 et seq. The Society has not been prejudiced by the delay. It now knows all that it needs to learn of the procedure in order to answer the subpena. Even if we assume that such knowledge was a prerequisite to the enforcement, by a contempt proceeding, of the District Court’s order, it certainly was not a prerequisite to the issuance of the subpena or to the entry of the District Court’s order.
3. Then, the Society claims that neither the complaint nor the amendment validly alleges a violation of Article 47 of the Police Regulations because the pleadings are not sufficiently specific. As Justice Frankfurter would have said, we have outgrown the formalism of Baron Parke. Modern cases fully support the sketchy nature of the instant complaint and amendment. Graniteville Co. (Sibley Div.) v. Equal Employ. Op. Com’n, 438 F.2d 32 (4th Cir., 1971); Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455 (5th Cir., 1970); Bowaters Southern Paper Corp. v. Equal Employ. Op. Com’n, 428 F.2d 799 (6th Cir., 1970); United States v. Gustin-Bacon Div. Certain-Teed Prod., 426 F.2d 539 (10th Cir., 1970).
4. Penultimately, the Society contends that the subpena is invalid because it was issued by the Executive Director of the Commission to whom the issuing power was not validly delegated. Here again the appellant has presented a sleeveless argument. The subpena states that it was issued under the authority granted by D.C.Code, § 1-237 (1967). That statute authorized the former District of Columbia Board of Commissioners to issue subpenas. As of June 10, 1965, when the Board of Commissioners enacted Article 47 of the D.C. Police Regulations, heretofore mentioned, they specifically provided that defendant (then operating under the name of “Commissioners Council on Human Relations”) “and its Executive Director shall possess the powers vested in the Commissioners by that Act.” Authorization for the aforesaid delegation is conferred by Reorganization Plan 5 of 1952. (66 Stat. 824, D.C.Code, Title I, Appendix, 1967 ed.).
5. The Society’s final point is that the District Court should have quashed the subpena because it is overly broad and oppressive, requires the Society to prepare and compile information, and demands items irrelevant to the complaint. We agree that on the record as it stands there is some merit to this point. We have no indication that either of the parties offered detailed argument to the District Court on any of the twelve categories of items to be produced, nor attempted to assess the relevance or the burden of the items. So far as appears, the parties treated the Court like the daysman on the shield of Achilles in the Iliad, that is, as an arbitrator limited to choosing between either one of two extreme positions but not free to form a wholly informed and truly independent judgment of the relevance of the items to the controversy and of the burdensomeness of compliance with the subpena. We do not suggest, that the District Court should be placed in the laborious position of ruling, unasked, upon each detail of the subpena as it would rule upon a question to which objection was taken at a trial. Yet the procedure here followed in the District Court seems to us inconsistent with the brooding omnipresence of the Fourth Amendment and with the growing recognition of the wisdom of Justice Brandeis’ remark that the Constitution “conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478, 48 S.Ct. 564, 572, 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928).
Without suggesting that the Commission here was engaged in a fishing expedition or in a search pursuant to an ulterior, unacknowledged purpose, and while recognizing how much need there is in a matter of this kind for background and statistical data and how thorough must be the scrutiny of many items which in their individual aspect seem insignificant but which in their totality reveal a pattern, we are concerned lest the judiciary lend itself to rubber-stamping the demands of administrative agencies which naturally enough have a zeal and sense of righteousness commensurate with the importance of their mission and the difficulties of its accomplishment.
What we deem appropriate is for the Commission, when challenged, to prove to the trial court by argument, not necessarily nor usually by evidence, that its demands are proper and necessary. The burden of persuasion rests upon it. And the trial court has the duty, in a contested case, of making explicit its rulings, though, of course they may have an orotund generality, as is usual in discovery proceedings.
We conclude that in this case a remand to permit this procedure is required because at our bar the Corporation Counsel representing the Commission admitted that paragraph 11 of the subpena should be struck, and that the subpena does not make it clear that it is limited, as apparently intended, to positions within the District of Columbia. Furthermore, we are not clear, and our confusion seemed to be shared by counsel, as to what is the starting date of the information sought. In the event the parties are unable to agree on a reasonable starting date for the information sought, the court shall fix the date. Whatever shape the subpena may have after it has been suitably tailored, it ought to bear the date of the final version.
Reversed and remanded.

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