The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lindsay, Magistrate Judge
Before the court is the pro se plaintiff's March 13, 2008, request to compel the defendant to respond to her Interrogatories served on the defendant on February 20, 2008. To begin with, the defendant's time to answer the Interrogatories had not expired as of the date of the application, and thus, was not ripe. In addition, the defendant has moved to strike the Interrogatory except for Nos. 4, 18 and 23. The Interrogatory adopts the exact questions that were served on the plaintiff and as such are for the most part nonsensical as applied to the defendant. The defendant does acknowledge, however, that questions 4, 18, and 23 may be subject to a reasonable interpretation as directed to the defendant. With respect to questions 4 and 18, the defendant shall provide the plaintiff with a written response identifying which documents provided in automatic disclosure respond to the question 4 and, with respect to question 18, that it has not yet determined whether it will call an expert. With respect to question 23, the defendant shall respond to question 23 only with respect to claims of disability discrimination asserted against it from June 2005 to date.
Also before the court is the defendant's motion for sanctions and its request for an extension of the discovery deadlines. The defendant seeks "dismissal, preclusion, contempt and attorneys' fees" based on the plaintiff's repeated failure to respond to the defendant's discovery requests. The plaintiff has repeatedly been warned by the court that her failure to comply could result in sanctions including a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed or that evidence be precluded. Despite these warnings, the defendant claims that the following discovery responses remain deficient:
1. The plaintiff has not provided a computation of the damages she claims to have suffered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (a)(1)(A)(iii);
2. The plaintiff has not signed her answers to the Interrogatories as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 (b)(4);
3. The plaintiff has not identified which medical test/exam she believes resulted in the defendant learning that she was HIV positive;
4. The plaintiff did not respond to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 20, 22 & 23. Instead she responded that "a copy is attached," but did not attach any documents;
5. The plaintiff objected to Interrogatories No. 3 and 21 but did not state the basis of her objection;
6. The plaintiff will not reveal which of her five health care providers has treated her for HIV or for her alleged physical and mental anguish in connection with this or her previous discrimination lawsuit;
7. The plaintiff will not provide information about her concurrent or subsequent employment; and
8. The plaintiff has served the defendant with nine documents, but has not indicated which requests they relate to or whether she has any other documents in her possession;
Although the plaintiff has previously advised the court that she has "provided all she can," the plaintiff must provide the defendants with a computation of her alleged damages, spelling out what she believes is owed her as a result of this claim. Plaintiff must also answer the interrogatory questions noted in writing and provide any relevant attachments. If responses are not given by April 14, 2008 the plaintiff will be subject to the following sanctions:
1) Plaintiff will not be permitted to call at trial any witnesses she has failed to identify in response to question 4;
2) If plaintiff fails to respond to questions 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10,11 and 12 she will precluded from testifying at trial as to what she believes are the true reasons for those suspensions. Plaintiff is cautioned that this ...