MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NANCY F. ATLAS, District Judge.

This Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case is before the Court on the Opposed Motion for Order to Amend Docket Control Order ("Motion") [Doc. # 48] filed by Defendant Schlumberger Technology Corporation ("Defendant").1 Plaintiff Corey Warf ("Plaintiff")2 responded [Doc. # 50], and Defendant replied [Doc. # 51]. Defendant's Motion is ripe for review.

Having reviewed the parties' briefing, all matters of the record, and the applicable legal authorities, the Court grants Defendant's Motion. Defendant's error in failing to identify and provide to Plaintiffs' counsel contact information on 39 additional potential class members caused these individuals to have been prevented from asserting their rights through no fault of their own.3 See Clarke v. Rader, 721 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2013). Analysis of whether to apply equitable tolling is fact specific. Granger v. Aaron's, Inc., 636 F.3d 708, 712 (5th Cir. 2011).

The Court concludes that equitable tolling for these individuals is warranted as a remedial measure in order to place these individuals in the same position as others who received the original notices of this case in March 2016. The Court accordingly is persuaded that the tolling period should commence on March 7, 2016, the date of dissemination of the original notices, through the date the collective action notice is disseminated to the newly identified individuals. Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary are rejected. Plaintiffs' requested tolling through the 60-day period during which the new individuals may opt into this action would result in a windfall that is both unwarranted for the newly identified individuals and creates an unwarranted disparity between this group and individuals who received the original notices and have filed notices of consent. It is therefore

ORDERED that Defendant's Opposed Motion for Order to Amend Docket Control Order [Doc. # 48] is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that the Docket Control Order entered by the Court on February 17, 2016 [Doc. # 32] is modified and the periods set forth in the Motion are adopted. The parties must submit on or before November 23, 2016, a proposed Amended Docket Control Order using, to the extent possible, the Court's standard form attached to its Procedures on the Court Website and including calendar dates for each deadline. It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs' counsel must disseminate notice of this action to the individuals identified by Defendant in its supplemental disclosure of September 23, 2016. The same terms set forth in the Court's Orders of February 8 and 17, 2016 [Docs. ## 29, 33] apply. It is further

ORDERED that the new Notice/Dissemination Period will begin upon Plaintiffs' counsel's dissemination of the notices to the individuals identified by Defendant in its supplemental disclosure of September 23, 2016, which notice must be sent to all such individuals on the same day and sent no later than seven (7) days from entry of the this Order. It is further

ORDERED that the statute of limitations period for all new potential class members identified by Defendant in its supplemental disclosure of September 23, 2016 is equitably tolled from March 7, 2016 until the date the new notice/dissemination period commences.