▁the ▁pla int iff ▁becomes ▁aware ▁of ▁the ▁injury . ▁ ▁The ▁District ▁Court ▁agreed ▁with ▁TR W , ▁and ▁held ▁that ▁a ▁general ▁federal ▁discovery ▁rule ▁was ▁not ▁incorpor ated ▁into ▁the ▁Fair ▁Cred it ▁Report ing ▁Act , ▁thus ▁bar ring ▁Andrew s ’ ▁claims ▁based ▁on ▁the ▁two ▁earliest ▁dis clos ures . ▁The ▁District ▁Court ▁also ▁granted ▁TR W ’ s ▁motion ▁for ▁summary ▁judgment ▁on ▁the ▁two ▁remaining ▁claims , ▁finding ▁that ▁TR W ▁had ▁maintained ▁ade qu ate ▁procedures ▁to ▁avoid ▁impro per ▁dis clos ures . ▁▁ ▁The ▁N inth ▁Circ uit ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁revers ed ▁the ▁District ▁Court , ▁applying ▁the ▁“ general ▁federal ▁rule ▁. ▁. ▁. ▁that ▁a ▁federal ▁stat ute ▁of ▁limitations ▁begins ▁to ▁run ▁when ▁a ▁party ▁knows ▁or ▁has ▁reason ▁to ▁know ▁that ▁she ▁was ▁injured .” ▁The ▁N inth ▁Circ uit ▁rejected ▁the ▁District ▁Court ’ s ▁assertion ▁that ▁the ▁text ▁of ▁ 1 5 ▁U . S . C . ▁ 1 6 8 1 p , ▁including ▁the ▁exception ▁to ▁the ▁comm enc ement ▁ ▁of ▁the ▁stat ute ▁of ▁limitations , ▁pre cluded ▁the ▁application ▁of ▁general ▁federal ▁discovery ▁rules , ▁holding ▁that ▁“ unless ▁Congress ▁has ▁express ly ▁legisl ated ▁otherwise ▁the ▁equ itable ▁doctrine ▁of ▁discovery ▁is ▁read ▁into ▁every ▁federal ▁stat ute ▁of ▁limitations .” ▁ ▁The ▁court ▁concluded ▁that ▁since ▁the ▁Fair ▁Cred it ▁Report ing ▁Act ▁contained ▁no ▁express ▁legisl ative ▁directive ▁the ▁general ▁rule ▁applied , ▁thus