an attorney. With respect to the first explanation, this Court has repeatedly held that while pro se litigants are entitled to special solicitude, “[a]ll litigants, including pro ses, have an obligation to comply with court orders.” Valentine, 29 F.3d at 50 (quoting Minotti, 895 F.2d at 103); see also Agiwal, 555 F.3d at 302. Houghton failed to seek clarification from the district court of any order he found unclear. In rejecting Houghton’s explanation based on his purported difficulties in retaining an attorney, the district court reasonably took into account Houghton’s termination of two separate attorneys over the course of the litigation and that he fired his last attorney in April 2009 — some 18 months before the scheduled trial date. See S. New England Tel. Co., 624 F.3d at 144 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover,
holding that the district court is not free to consider the potential for issue reduction when determining whether a putative intervener has a protectable interest in the merits of the action holding that the appropriate sanction was to require the defendant to disclose the nature of the agreement with the witness holding that in exercising its discretion in choosing the appropriate sanction the trial court is not limited to considering only the specific violation committed but is entitled to consider other matters which have occurred during the litigation holding that while the nonprevailing partys financial condition is not appropriate to consider in determining whether to award attorneys fees it is appropriate to consider when determining the amount of the attorneys fees holding that the district court is free to consider the full record in the case when selecting the appropriate sanction