argues that knowledge of that publicity bars this present lawsuit. As a demonstration of this publicity, Boeing has submitted “over 150 ... public agent and news reports.” (Defs.’ Mot. at 10.) Boeing, however, misconstrues the role of publicity in application of the discovery rule. Where publicity and information concerning an issue are generally available, the Court may impute knowledge of that information to a plaintiff. The mere fact of publicity, however, does not conclusively show that a plaintiff must be imputed with knowledge. The determination of whether a reasonable person would have discovered the information depends on various factors. The quality and quantity of the information or publicity are factors. See Hopkins v. Dow Corning Corp., 33 F.3d 1116, 1123 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the characteristics of the
holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment holding that imputing knowledge was not appropriate where article and other lawsuits were neither numerous nor notorious enough holding that there can be no plain error where neither we nor the supreme court has addressed an issue holding that when counsel denied the petitioner the right to appeal neither the strickland prejudice prong nor the harmlesserror test is appropriate holding that where judgment was not entered the appeals period neither triggered nor expired