ORDER

NINA Y. WANG, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on Defendant Carnation Building Services, Inc.'s ("Defendant") Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ("Motion to Strike"). [#34, filed Mar. 20, 2016]. The Motion to Strike was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge Pursuant to the Order of Reference dated February 16, 2016 [#12] and the Memorandum dated March 24, 2016 [#36].

Defendant requests that the court strike Plaintiff's response in opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Defendant's argument is not entirely clear, but it appears that Defendant takes issue with the length and clarity of Plaintiff's brief.

While the court takes seriously the mandate to swiftly and expediently facilitate the administration of justice, as set forth Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 and the other authorities cited in Defendant's Motion to Strike, the court does not find Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's response should be stricken to be persuasive. First, the court acknowledges Plaintiff's pro se status and reminds Defendant that Plaintiff's pro se status means that his pleadings are afforded a more liberal interpretation. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Second, the court disagrees with Defendant's representation that Plaintiff's brief was at least 68 pages. To the contrary, the brief is 21 pages and the accompanying exhibits bring his total page count to 68. See [#33 at 21]. Third, reminds both parties that they are required to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this District, and the Civil Practice Standards of the presiding judge, the Honorable Christine M. Arguello. Indeed, in filing the present Motion, Defendant specifically failed to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a), which requires conferral with Plaintiff prior to filing a motion of this nature. While Judge Arguello's Practice Standards require responses to be limited to fifteen pages, Plaintiff's pro se status is a sufficient basis for leave from that requirement for this response alone.

The court finds that striking Plaintiff's response in opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is not appropriate, in part because Defendant has not presented a convincing argument that this remedy is necessary, and in part because Defendant failed to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a) in filing the present Motion. The Parties are specifically advised that failure to comply with the Local Rules of this District and/or Judge Arguello's Practice Standards in the future may lead to the striking of any such motions, without substantive consideration.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Carnation Building Services, Inc.'s Motion to Strike [#34] is DENIED.