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:
REPUBLIC ELECTRIC CO., Inc., et al. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
January 11, 1929.
No. 3928.
Charles J. Holland, of New York City, for appellants.
Howson & Howson and Hubert Howson, all of New York City, for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAYIS, Circuit Judges.
WOOLLEY, Circuit Judge.
The decree here on appeal is for contempt and runs against the Republic Electric Company, Inc., and Herman J. Jaeger. It was entered when an appeal from a decree for a' preliminary injunction against these and other defendants was pending in this court. As Jaeger was on that appeal released from the preliminary injunction [27 F.(2d) 595], manifestly he cannot be held in contempt for violating an injunction from which he now stands discharged. Therefore the decree for contempt in so far as it affects Jaeger is re- ' versed.
Laying aside the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal and going directly to the merits, it appears that the only debatable ground for reversal of the decree advanced by Republic Electric Company, the remaining appellant, is that it was not served with notice of the order to show cause why it should not be attached and punished for contempt in violating the preliminary injunction. That ordinarily would be enough; but the facts throw a different light on the ease. They are briefly these:
The ■ appellant was and still is defendant in a suit for infringement brought by the appellee. It appeared generally and defended on the motion for a preliminary injunction and was present by counsel when the court awarded the injunction. The plaintiff asserts with some force that the appellant has concealed the names of its directors and other officers. Certainly it no longer maintains in New Jersey a statutory agent upon whom service of process may be made. It may have been for these reasons that the learned court, in framing its order to show cause in the contempt proceeding, expressly provided that “service upon defendant’s counsel (naming them) shall be deemed good and sufficient service.” Pursuant thereto service was made upon its counsel. As, evidently, that was the only way of reaching the defendant (now appellant), and in view of the fact that the appellant was at all times in court on a general appearance, had participated in all antecedent proceedings, and had also appeared in the contempt proceeding and defended on the ground of want of service, thereby showing actual knowledge and notice of the outstanding order, and had failed to apprise the appellee or the court of the names of its directors and officers whereby more formal service might be made, we hold that the court was justified in directing service of the order to show cause upon the appellant’s counsel and that in the circumstances it was a good service.
The decree against the Republic Electric Company, Inc., must stand, but for what amount? The decree as framed is against two defendants for $1,000.00. It has been reversed as to one. In the absence of anything which shows that liability on the decree is joint and several, the decree against the Republic Electric Company, Inc., will be affirmed when reduced to $500.00. Costs of appeal to be divided and borne equally by the corporate parties.

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: 1