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:
John Michael SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17545.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Jan. 16, 1968.
Sol E. Goldberg, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
John L. Vanker, Jr., Detroit, Mich. (Butzel, Eaman, Long, Gust & Kennedy, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and PECK and COMBS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
COMBS, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee in a personal injury action.
The appellant, John Michael Smith, a former employee of the appellee, Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., was awarded workmen’s compensation for an injury sustained in the course of his employment in 1958. That injury was, in the words of appellant’s counsel, “a psycho-physiological-musculo-skeletal reaction.”
During the compensable period for workmen’s compensation, the appellee company employed private detectives to obtain certain information about the appellant, allegedly for use in a further proceeding in the workmen’s compensation case. An altercation occurred between appellant and one of the detectives. This action for personal injuries was instituted following the altercation. It was alleged in the complaint that the company “knew of plaintiff’s neurotic condition and it was expressly designed as a part of its program of harassment of the plaintiff to provoke the plaintiff to displaying his neurotic tendencies;” also that “as a direct and proximate result of the misconduct of the defendant, its attorneys, agents and employees the previously existing traumatic neurosis was deepened, extended, and aggravated.”
Before the personal injury case came to trial, additional proceedings were had in the workmen’s compensation case. In those proceedings counsel for appellant stated in writing that the issue was: “Is plaintiff’s present disability due to the injury of December 3, 1958?” Having stated the question, appellant’s counsel then said, “The answer should be yes.”
Judge Talbot Smith, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, granted summary judgment for the appellee on the ground that appellant’s position in the personal injury case is so clearly inconsistent with his position before the Workmen’s Compensation Commission that the principle of judicial estoppel applies, citing Scarano v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 203 F.2d 510 (3rd Cir. 1953), and cases of like import. We agree. Appellant having taken the unequivocal position in the workmen’s compensation proceeding that his present disability is due solely to the 1958 injury, he will not be permitted to assert in this action that his disability is a result of subsequent tortious conduct by the appellee.
For the reasons set forth in Judge Smith’s opinion, the judgment 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: 0