Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies For a detailed discussion about the Company’s commitments and contingencies, see Note 23, “Commitments and Contingencies” to the consolidated financial statements in the 2017 Form 10-K. During the three months ended September 30, 2017, other than the following, there were no material changes in the Company’s commitments and contingencies. Non-cancelable Purchase Orders As of September 30, 2017, the Company had committed to purchase green coffee inventory totaling $56.3 million under fixed-price contracts, and other purchases totaling $12.1 million under non-cancelable purchase orders. Legal Proceedings Council for Education and Research on Toxics (“CERT”) v. Brad Berry Company Ltd., et al., Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles On August 31, 2012, CERT filed an amendment to a private enforcement action adding a number of companies as defendants, including CBI, which sell coffee in California. The suit alleges that the defendants have failed to issue clear and reasonable warnings in accordance with Proposition 65 that the coffee they produce, distribute and sell contains acrylamide. This lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court (the “Court”). CERT has demanded that the alleged violators remove acrylamide from their coffee or provide Proposition 65 warnings on their products and pay $2,500 per day for each and every violation while they are in violation of Proposition 65. Acrylamide is produced naturally in connection with the heating of many foods, especially starchy foods, and is believed to be caused by the Maillard reaction, though it has also been found in unheated foods such as olives. With respect to coffee, acrylamide is produced when coffee beans are heated during the roasting process-it is the roasting itself that produces the acrylamide. While there has been a significant amount of research concerning proposals for treatments and other processes aimed at reducing acrylamide content of different types of foods, to our knowledge there is currently no known strategy for reducing acrylamide in coffee without negatively impacting the sensorial properties of the product. The Company has joined a Joint Defense Group, or JDG, and, along with the other co-defendants, has answered the complaint, denying, generally, the allegations of the complaint, including the claimed violation of Proposition 65 and further denying CERT’s right to any relief or damages, including the right to require a warning on products. The Joint Defense Group contends that based on proper scientific analysis and proper application of the standards set forth in Proposition 65, exposures to acrylamide from the coffee products pose no significant risk of cancer and, thus, these exposures are exempt from Proposition 65’s warning requirement. To date, the pleadings stage of the case has been completed. The Court has phased trial so that the “no significant risk level” defense, the First Amendment defense, and the preemption defense will be tried first. Fact discovery and expert discovery on these “Phase 1” defenses have been completed, and the parties filed trial briefs. Trial commenced on September 8, 2014, and testimony completed on November 4, 2014, for the three Phase 1 defenses. Following final trial briefing, the Court heard, on April 9, 2015, final arguments on the Phase 1 issues. On September 1, 2015, the Court ruled against the JDG on the Phase 1 affirmative defenses. The JDG received permission to file an interlocutory appeal, which was filed by writ petition on October 14, 2015. On January 14, 2016, the Court of Appeals denied the JDG’s writ petition thereby denying the interlocutory appeal so that the case stays with the trial court. On February 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication arguing that based upon facts that had been stipulated by the JDG, the Plaintiff had proven its prima facie case and all that remains is a determination of whether any affirmative defenses are available to Defendants. On March 16, 2016, the Court reinstated the stay on discovery for all parties except for the four largest defendants. Following a hearing on April 20, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication on its prima facie case. Plaintiff filed its motion for summary adjudication of affirmatives defenses on May 16, 2016. At the August 19, 2016 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication (and the JDG’s opposition), the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, thus maintaining the ability of the JDG to defend the issues at trial. On October 7, 2016, the Court continued the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction until the trial for Phase 2. In November 2016, the parties pursued mediation, but were not able to resolve the dispute. In December 2016, discovery resumed for all defendants. Depositions of “person most knowledgeable” witnesses for each defendant in the JDG commenced in late December and proceeded through early 2017, followed by new interrogatories served upon the defendants. The Court set a fact and discovery cutoff of May 31, 2017 and an expert discovery cutoff of August 4, 2017. Depositions of expert witnesses were completed by the end of July. On July 6, 2017, the Court held hearings on a number of discovery motions and denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions as to all the defendants. At a final case management conference on August 21, 2017 the Court set August 31, 2017 as the new trial date for Phase 2, though later changed the starting date for trial to September 5, 2017. The Court elected to break up trial for Phase 2 into two segments, the first focused on liability and the second on remedies. After 14 days at trial, both sides rested on the liability segment, and the Court set a date of November 21, 2017 for the hearing for all evidentiary issues related to this liability segment. The Court also set deadlines for evidentiary motions, issues for oral argument, and oppositions to motions. The Court has indicated that it will announce its decision on the liability segment of the Phase 2 trial following the November 21, 2017 hearing. Based upon the Court’s decision on liability, any remedies segment to the Phase 2 trial would start in 2018. At this time, the Company is not able to predict the probability of the outcome or estimate of loss, if any, related to this matter. The Company is a party to various other pending legal and administrative proceedings. It is management’s opinion that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

For a detailed discussion about the Company’s commitments and contingencies, see Note 23, “Commitments and Contingencies” to the consolidated financial statements in the 2017 Form 10-K. During the three months ended September 30, 2017, other than the following, there were no material changes in the Company’s commitments and contingencies.

Non-cancelable Purchase Orders

As of September 30, 2017, the Company had committed to purchase green coffee inventory totaling $56.3 million under fixed-price contracts, and other purchases totaling $12.1 million under non-cancelable purchase orders.

Legal Proceedings

Council for Education and Research on Toxics (“CERT”) v. Brad Berry Company Ltd., et al., Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles

On August 31, 2012, CERT filed an amendment to a private enforcement action adding a number of companies as defendants, including CBI, which sell coffee in California. The suit alleges that the defendants have failed to issue clear and reasonable warnings in accordance with Proposition 65 that the coffee they produce, distribute and sell contains acrylamide. This lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court (the “Court”). CERT has demanded that the alleged violators remove acrylamide from their coffee or provide Proposition 65 warnings on their products and pay $2,500 per day for each and every violation while they are in violation of Proposition 65.

Acrylamide is produced naturally in connection with the heating of many foods, especially starchy foods, and is believed to be caused by the Maillard reaction, though it has also been found in unheated foods such as olives. With respect to coffee, acrylamide is produced when coffee beans are heated during the roasting process-it is the roasting itself that produces the acrylamide. While there has been a significant amount of research concerning proposals for treatments and other processes aimed at reducing acrylamide content of different types of foods, to our knowledge there is currently no known strategy for reducing acrylamide in coffee without negatively impacting the sensorial properties of the product.

The Company has joined a Joint Defense Group, or JDG, and, along with the other co-defendants, has answered the complaint, denying, generally, the allegations of the complaint, including the claimed violation of Proposition 65 and further denying CERT’s right to any relief or damages, including the right to require a warning on products. The Joint Defense Group contends that based on proper scientific analysis and proper application of the standards set forth in Proposition 65, exposures to acrylamide from the coffee products pose no significant risk of cancer and, thus, these exposures are exempt from Proposition 65’s warning requirement.

To date, the pleadings stage of the case has been completed. The Court has phased trial so that the “no significant risk level” defense, the First Amendment defense, and the preemption defense will be tried first. Fact discovery and expert discovery on these “Phase 1” defenses have been completed, and the parties filed trial briefs. Trial commenced on September 8, 2014, and testimony completed on November 4, 2014, for the three Phase 1 defenses.

Following final trial briefing, the Court heard, on April 9, 2015, final arguments on the Phase 1 issues. On September 1, 2015, the Court ruled against the JDG on the Phase 1 affirmative defenses. The JDG received permission to file an interlocutory appeal, which was filed by writ petition on October 14, 2015. On January 14, 2016, the Court of Appeals denied the JDG’s writ petition thereby denying the interlocutory appeal so that the case stays with the trial court.

On February 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication arguing that based upon facts that had been stipulated by the JDG, the Plaintiff had proven its prima facie case and all that remains is a determination of whether any affirmative defenses are available to Defendants. On March 16, 2016, the Court reinstated the stay on discovery for all parties except for the four largest defendants. Following a hearing on April 20, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication on its prima facie case. Plaintiff filed its motion for summary adjudication of affirmatives defenses on May 16, 2016. At the August 19, 2016 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication (and the JDG’s opposition), the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, thus maintaining the ability of the JDG to defend the issues at trial. On October 7, 2016, the Court continued the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction until the trial for Phase 2.

In November 2016, the parties pursued mediation, but were not able to resolve the dispute.

In December 2016, discovery resumed for all defendants. Depositions of “person most knowledgeable” witnesses for each defendant in the JDG commenced in late December and proceeded through early 2017, followed by new interrogatories served upon the defendants. The Court set a fact and discovery cutoff of May 31, 2017 and an expert discovery cutoff of August 4, 2017. Depositions of expert witnesses were completed by the end of July. On July 6, 2017, the Court held hearings on a number of discovery motions and denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions as to all the defendants.

At a final case management conference on August 21, 2017 the Court set August 31, 2017 as the new trial date for Phase 2, though later changed the starting date for trial to September 5, 2017. The Court elected to break up trial for Phase 2 into two segments, the first focused on liability and the second on remedies. After 14 days at trial, both sides rested on the liability segment, and the Court set a date of November 21, 2017 for the hearing for all evidentiary issues related to this liability segment. The Court also set deadlines for evidentiary motions, issues for oral argument, and oppositions to motions. The Court has indicated that it will announce its decision on the liability segment of the Phase 2 trial following the November 21, 2017 hearing. Based upon the Court’s decision on liability, any remedies segment to the Phase 2 trial would start in 2018.

At this time, the Company is not able to predict the probability of the outcome or estimate of loss, if any, related to this matter.

The Company is a party to various other pending legal and administrative proceedings. It is management’s opinion that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.