Commitments And Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	11. Commitments and Contingencies Contingent Obligations Related to Divested Operations — We have divested certain businesses in prior years. In each case, we have retained certain known contingent obligations related to those businesses and/or assumed an obligation to indemnify the purchasers of the businesses for certain unknown contingent liabilities, including environmental liabilities. We are currently participating in global settlement negotiations with Spanish authorities to resolve pending industry-wide investigations relating to excess production of raw milk by producers and unpaid levies associated with such production, which obligation we retained in the 2006 sale of our Iberian operations. Upon final settlement, we may incur additional charges related to these liabilities, but it is currently not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. We believe that we have established adequate reserves which are immaterial to the financial statements for potential liabilities and indemnifications related to our divested businesses. Moreover, we do not expect any liability that we may have for these retained liabilities, or any indemnification liability, to materially exceed amounts accrued. Contingent Obligations Related to Milk Supply Arrangements — On December 21, 2001, in connection with our acquisition of Legacy Dean, we purchased Dairy Farmers of America's ("DFA") 33.8% interest in our operations. In connection with that transaction, we issued a contingent, subordinated promissory note to DFA in the original principal amount of $40 million. The promissory note has a 20-year term that bears interest based on the consumer price index. Interest will not be paid in cash but will be added to the principal amount of the note annually, up to a maximum principal amount of $96 million. We may prepay the note in whole or in part at any time, without penalty. The note will only become payable if we materially breach or terminate one of our related milk supply agreements with DFA without renewal or replacement. Otherwise, the note will expire in 2021, without any obligation to pay any portion of the principal or interest. Payments made under the note, if any, would be expensed as incurred. We have not terminated, and we have not materially breached, any of our milk supply agreements with DFA related to the promissory note. We have previously terminated unrelated supply agreements with respect to several plants that were supplied by DFA. In connection with our goals of accelerated cost control and increased supply chain efficiency, we continue to evaluate our sources of raw milk supply. Insurance — We retain selected levels of property and casualty risks, primarily related to employee health care, workers' compensation claims and other casualty losses. Many of these potential losses are covered under conventional insurance programs with third party carriers with high deductible limits. In other areas, we are self-insured. These deductibles are $2.0 million for casualty claims but may vary higher or lower due to insurance market conditions and risk. We believe that we have established adequate reserves to cover these claims. Lease and Purchase Obligations — We lease certain property, plant and equipment used in our operations under both capital and operating lease agreements. Such leases, which are primarily for machinery, equipment and vehicles, have lease terms ranging from one to 20 years. We did not have any material capital lease obligations as of March 31, 2012. Certain of the operating lease agreements require the payment of additional rentals for maintenance, along with additional rentals based on miles driven or units produced. Certain leases require us to guarantee a minimum value of the leased asset at the end of the lease. Our maximum exposure under those guarantees is not a material amount. We have entered into various contracts, in the normal course of business, obligating us to purchase minimum quantities of raw materials used in our production and distribution processes, including diesel fuel, soybeans and organic raw milk. We enter into these contracts from time to time to ensure a sufficient supply of raw ingredients. In addition, we have contractual obligations to purchase various services that are part of our production process. Litigation, Investigations and Audits *Tennessee Dairy Farmer Actions and Related Mississippi Action* We were named, along with several other defendants, in two putative class action antitrust complaints filed on July 5, 2007. The complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Columbia Division, and allege generally that we and others in the milk industry worked together to limit the price Southeastern dairy farmers are paid for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk processing facilities. Four additional putative class action complaints were filed in 2007 and 2008 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division. The allegations in these complaints are similar to those in the dairy farmer actions. All six of the class actions (collectively, the "dairy farmer actions") were consolidated and were transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division. Class certification in the dairy farmer actions was granted in September 2010. On July 12, 2011, we entered into a settlement agreement with the class plaintiffs in the dairy farmer actions. On July 14, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted preliminary approval of the class-wide settlement agreement and stayed the dairy farmer action with respect to the Company. Under the proposed settlement agreement, we agreed to pay a total of up to $140 million over a period of four to five years into a fund for distribution to dairy farmer class members in a number of Southeastern states. On July 28, 2011, the Court issued an order partially decertifying the dairy farmer plaintiff class with which we had previously entered into the settlement agreement. The dairy farmer plaintiffs that were decertified from the class are, or were, members of the Dairy Farmers of America ("DFA") co-operative. On August 1, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to re-consider its decertification order. The Court denied that motion on August 19, 2011. In order to pursue a final and certain resolution consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement, we filed a motion with the Court on August 5, 2011 to vacate preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, defer associated deadlines related to the settlement, and to clarify the role of class counsel in light of the Court's decertification order. The motion was granted by the Court and a Memorandum Opinion was issued on August 31, 2011. In the Memorandum Opinion, the Court stated that it would take the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement under advisement pending appointment of separate counsel and class representatives for the decertified DFA subclass. In a separate order entered on October 5, 2011, the Court appointed separate interim counsel for the DFA subclass, and set preliminary deadlines for newly designated interim counsel to submit any motion for certification of a DFA subclass for settlement purposes and any motion to preliminarily approve the July 12, 2011 settlement agreement. On December 27, 2011, interim counsel for the putative DFA member subclass filed a motion to certify the DFA subclass for settlement purposes and to reinstate preliminary approval of the July 12, 2011 settlement agreement. Dean responded to the motion on January 17, 2012, and did not oppose the motion. On February 14, 2012, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, and set May 15, 2012 as the date to consider final approval of the agreement. Per the terms of the settlement agreement, on February 21, 2012 we made a payment of $60 million into an escrow account to be distributed following the Court's final approval, and issued a standby letter of credit in the amount of $80 million to support subsequent payments due under the agreement. The settlement agreement requires us to make a payment of up to $20 million on each of the following four anniversaries of the settlement agreement's final approval date. There can be no assurance that the settlement agreement will receive final approval in its current form, in another form that is acceptable to the Court and the parties, or at all. In the second quarter of 2011, we recorded a $131.3 million charge and a corresponding liability for the present value of our obligations under the original settlement agreement, based on imputed interest computed at a rate of 4.77%, which approximates our like-term incremental fixed rate borrowing cost. We have continued to accrete interest related to this recorded liability as we believe a settlement of this matter is likely to occur under substantially similar financing terms. On April 26, 2011, we, along with our Chief Executive Officer, Gregg Engles, and other defendants, were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division. An amended complaint was filed in August 2011, which dropped the class action allegations. The allegations in the amended complaint are similar to those in the Tennessee dairy farmer actions. In addition, plaintiffs have alleged generally that defendants committed civil violations of the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), as well as common law fraud and tortious interference with contract. Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages for the alleged antitrust and RICO violations, and compensatory and consequential damages for the common law fraud and tortious interference claims. On August 11, 2011, a motion to dismiss all of the claims was filed on behalf of Mr. Engles, and motions to dismiss all but the antitrust claims were filed on behalf of the Company and the other defendants. Plaintiffs responded to those motions on October 4, 2011. On November 9, 2011, the Court granted the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Mr. Engles, and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the Company. The Company filed its answer on November 23, 2011. On February 17 and February 29, 2012, the Company entered into settlement agreements with all of the plaintiffs pursuant to which all of the claims against the Company have been dismissed, and the Company's involvement as a party in the case has ended. *Tennessee Retailer and Indirect Purchaser Actions* A putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer action") was filed on August 9, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege generally that we, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry who are also defendants in the retailer action, lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other customers, and that the defendants' conduct also artificially inflated wholesale prices for direct milk purchasers. Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the retailer action was granted in part and denied in part in August 2010. Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on September 10, 2010, and filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claims on September 27, 2010. On March 27, 2012, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to all remaining counts and entered judgment in favor of all defendants, including the Company. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 25, 2012. The appeals court has set a scheduling conference for May 30, 2012. On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the "indirect purchaser action"). The allegations in this complaint are similar to those in the retailer action, but primarily involve state law claims. Because the allegations in the indirect purchaser action substantially overlap with the allegations in the retailer action, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the outcome of the summary judgment motions in the retailer action. At this time, the stay remains in effect.

11. Commitments and Contingencies

Contingent Obligations Related to Divested Operations — We have divested certain businesses in prior years. In each case, we have retained certain known contingent obligations related to those businesses and/or assumed an obligation to indemnify the purchasers of the businesses for certain unknown contingent liabilities, including environmental liabilities. We are currently participating in global settlement negotiations with Spanish authorities to resolve pending industry-wide investigations relating to excess production of raw milk by producers and unpaid levies associated with such production, which obligation we retained in the 2006 sale of our Iberian operations. Upon final settlement, we may incur additional charges related to these liabilities, but it is currently not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. We believe that we have established adequate reserves which are immaterial to the financial statements for potential liabilities and indemnifications related to our divested businesses. Moreover, we do not expect any liability that we may have for these retained liabilities, or any indemnification liability, to materially exceed amounts accrued.

Contingent Obligations Related to Milk Supply Arrangements — On December 21, 2001, in connection with our acquisition of Legacy Dean, we purchased Dairy Farmers of America's ("DFA") 33.8% interest in our operations. In connection with that transaction, we issued a contingent, subordinated promissory note to DFA in the original principal amount of $40 million. The promissory note has a 20-year term that bears interest based on the consumer price index. Interest will not be paid in cash but will be added to the principal amount of the note annually, up to a maximum principal amount of $96 million. We may prepay the note in whole or in part at any time, without penalty. The note will only become payable if we materially breach or terminate one of our related milk supply agreements with DFA without renewal or replacement. Otherwise, the note will expire in 2021, without any obligation to pay any portion of the principal or interest. Payments made under the note, if any, would be expensed as incurred. We have not terminated, and we have not materially breached, any of our milk supply agreements with DFA related to the promissory note. We have previously terminated unrelated supply agreements with respect to several plants that were supplied by DFA. In connection with our goals of accelerated cost control and increased supply chain efficiency, we continue to evaluate our sources of raw milk supply.

Insurance — We retain selected levels of property and casualty risks, primarily related to employee health care, workers' compensation claims and other casualty losses. Many of these potential losses are covered under conventional insurance programs with third party carriers with high deductible limits. In other areas, we are self-insured. These deductibles are $2.0 million for casualty claims but may vary higher or lower due to insurance market conditions and risk. We believe that we have established adequate reserves to cover these claims.

Lease and Purchase Obligations — We lease certain property, plant and equipment used in our operations under both capital and operating lease agreements. Such leases, which are primarily for machinery, equipment and vehicles, have lease terms ranging from one to 20 years. We did not have any material capital lease obligations as of March 31, 2012. Certain of the operating lease agreements require the payment of additional rentals for maintenance, along with additional rentals based on miles driven or units produced. Certain leases require us to guarantee a minimum value of the leased asset at the end of the lease. Our maximum exposure under those guarantees is not a material amount.

We have entered into various contracts, in the normal course of business, obligating us to purchase minimum quantities of raw materials used in our production and distribution processes, including diesel fuel, soybeans and organic raw milk. We enter into these contracts from time to time to ensure a sufficient supply of raw ingredients. In addition, we have contractual obligations to purchase various services that are part of our production process.

Litigation, Investigations and Audits

Tennessee Dairy Farmer Actions and Related Mississippi Action

We were named, along with several other defendants, in two putative class action antitrust complaints filed on July 5, 2007. The complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Columbia Division, and allege generally that we and others in the milk industry worked together to limit the price Southeastern dairy farmers are paid for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk processing facilities. Four additional putative class action complaints were filed in 2007 and 2008 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division. The allegations in these complaints are similar to those in the dairy farmer actions. All six of the class actions (collectively, the "dairy farmer actions") were consolidated and were transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division. Class certification in the dairy farmer actions was granted in September 2010.

On July 12, 2011, we entered into a settlement agreement with the class plaintiffs in the dairy farmer actions. On July 14, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted preliminary approval of the class-wide settlement agreement and stayed the dairy farmer action with respect to the Company. Under the proposed settlement agreement, we agreed to pay a total of up to $140 million over a period of four to five years into a fund for distribution to dairy farmer class members in a number of Southeastern states.

On July 28, 2011, the Court issued an order partially decertifying the dairy farmer plaintiff class with which we had previously entered into the settlement agreement. The dairy farmer plaintiffs that were decertified from the class are, or were, members of the Dairy Farmers of America ("DFA") co-operative. On August 1, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to re-consider its decertification order. The Court denied that motion on August 19, 2011. In order to pursue a final and certain resolution consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement, we filed a motion with the Court on August 5, 2011 to vacate preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, defer associated deadlines related to the settlement, and to clarify the role of class counsel in light of the Court's decertification order. The motion was granted by the Court and a Memorandum Opinion was issued on August 31, 2011. In the Memorandum Opinion, the Court stated that it would take the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement under advisement pending appointment of separate counsel and class representatives for the decertified DFA subclass.

In a separate order entered on October 5, 2011, the Court appointed separate interim counsel for the DFA subclass, and set preliminary deadlines for newly designated interim counsel to submit any motion for certification of a DFA subclass for settlement purposes and any motion to preliminarily approve the July 12, 2011 settlement agreement. On December 27, 2011, interim counsel for the putative DFA member subclass filed a motion to certify the DFA subclass for settlement purposes and to reinstate preliminary approval of the July 12, 2011 settlement agreement. Dean responded to the motion on January 17, 2012, and did not oppose the motion. On February 14, 2012, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, and set May 15, 2012 as the date to consider final approval of the agreement. Per the terms of the settlement agreement, on February 21, 2012 we made a payment of $60 million into an escrow account to be distributed following the Court's final approval, and issued a standby letter of credit in the amount of $80 million to support subsequent payments due under the agreement. The settlement agreement requires us to make a payment of up to $20 million on each of the following four anniversaries of the settlement agreement's final approval date. There can be no assurance that the settlement agreement will receive final approval in its current form, in another form that is acceptable to the Court and the parties, or at all.

In the second quarter of 2011, we recorded a $131.3 million charge and a corresponding liability for the present value of our obligations under the original settlement agreement, based on imputed interest computed at a rate of 4.77%, which approximates our like-term incremental fixed rate borrowing cost. We have continued to accrete interest related to this recorded liability as we believe a settlement of this matter is likely to occur under substantially similar financing terms.

On April 26, 2011, we, along with our Chief Executive Officer, Gregg Engles, and other defendants, were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division. An amended complaint was filed in August 2011, which dropped the class action allegations. The allegations in the amended complaint are similar to those in the Tennessee dairy farmer actions. In addition, plaintiffs have alleged generally that defendants committed civil violations of the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), as well as common law fraud and tortious interference with contract. Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages for the alleged antitrust and RICO violations, and compensatory and consequential damages for the common law fraud and tortious interference claims.

On August 11, 2011, a motion to dismiss all of the claims was filed on behalf of Mr. Engles, and motions to dismiss all but the antitrust claims were filed on behalf of the Company and the other defendants. Plaintiffs responded to those motions on October 4, 2011. On November 9, 2011, the Court granted the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Mr. Engles, and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the Company. The Company filed its answer on November 23, 2011. On February 17 and February 29, 2012, the Company entered into settlement agreements with all of the plaintiffs pursuant to which all of the claims against the Company have been dismissed, and the Company's involvement as a party in the case has ended.

Tennessee Retailer and Indirect Purchaser Actions

A putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer action") was filed on August 9, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege generally that we, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry who are also defendants in the retailer action, lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other customers, and that the defendants' conduct also artificially inflated wholesale prices for direct milk purchasers. Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the retailer action was granted in part and denied in part in August 2010. Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on September 10, 2010, and filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claims on September 27, 2010. On March 27, 2012, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to all remaining counts and entered judgment in favor of all defendants, including the Company. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 25, 2012. The appeals court has set a scheduling conference for May 30, 2012.

On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the "indirect purchaser action"). The allegations in this complaint are similar to those in the retailer action, but primarily involve state law claims. Because the allegations in the indirect purchaser action substantially overlap with the allegations in the retailer action, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the outcome of the summary judgment motions in the retailer action. At this time, the stay remains in effect.