Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	11. Commitments and Contingencies Total rent expense under our operating leases, net of sublease income, was $1.5 million in each of the three month periods ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $2.9 million and $3.0 million in the six month periods ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Some of our leases contain renewal options and escalation clauses, and require us to pay taxes, insurance and maintenance costs. Legal Proceedings From time to time, we receive claims of and become subject to consumer protection, employment, intellectual property and other litigation related to the conduct of our business. Any such litigation could result in a material amount of legal or related expenses and be time consuming and could divert our management and key personnel from our business operations. In connection with any such litigation, we may be subject to significant damages or equitable remedies relating to the operation of our business. Any such litigation may materially harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. As described above in Note 3, we acquired certain assets of En Pointe Technologies in 2015. The assets were acquired by an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of PCM, which subsidiary now operates under the En Pointe brand (“En Pointe”). We are currently involved in several disputes related to the En Pointe acquisition as described below. Any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution process could be costly and time consuming and could divert our management and key personnel from our business operations. In connection with any such matters, we may be subject to significant damages or equitable remedies relating to the operation of our business and could incur significant costs in asserting, defending, or settling any such matters. While we intend to pursue and/or defend these actions vigorously, we cannot determine with any certainty the costs or outcome of such pending or future matters, and they may materially harm our business, results of operations or financial condition. Delaware Litigation with Collab9. On December 5, 2016, Collab9, Inc. (formerly, En Pointe Technologies Sales, Inc.) filed an action against PCM, Inc. and its subsidiary, En Pointe Technologies Sales, LLC, in the Superior Court of Delaware in New Castle County, Delaware. The action arises out of a March 12, 2015 Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) pursuant to which the Company acquired assets of Collab9’s information technology solutions business. Collab9’s complaint alleges that the Company breached the APA by failing to pay Collab9 the full amount of the periodic “earn-out” payments to which Collab9 is entitled under the APA. The complaint also alleges that the Company breached an obligation to cooperate with Collab9’s evaluation of its claim for breach of the APA’s earn-out provisions. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages Collab9 is seeking, but asserts that the amount of underpayment is “millions of dollars.” On February 8, 2017, the Company filed an answer to Collab9’s complaint in which the Company denied that it breached the APA and asserted that there is no merit in Collab9’s claim. On June 23, 2017, Collab9 informed the Company that Collab9 believes it has additional claims that the Company (i) breached an alleged obligation under the APA to provide a SAP software license to Collab9, (ii) improperly used, manipulated and/or copied data residing on the acquired business’ information technology platform, and (iii) improperly terminated Collab9’s access to certain software and data residing on that platform; however, Collab9 has not amended its complaint to include these claims. The court has not yet established a schedule for pretrial proceedings or for trial on the merits of Collab9’s claims. The Company believes the claims are speculative and wholly without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the claims. However, the outcome of this matter is uncertain and, as a result, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss that could result in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued for any liability that may result from the resolution of this matter. On April 11, 2017, the Company amended its answer to include counterclaims against the sellers in the Collab 9 transaction, including Collab9. These counterclaims assert claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, and intentional misrepresentation. The counterclaims include allegations that the sellers intentionally breached their representations and warranties concerning the financial statements of the business whose assets the Company acquired under the APA, and the need for minority business certifications which were required for certain acquired contracts under the APA. The counterclaims also include allegations that the sellers failed to disclose related party interests or retained control over Ovex Technologies (Private) Limited (“Ovex”), a third party operation in Pakistan that provided support functions for the acquired business. At this time, the outcome of this matter is uncertain. California Litigation with Collab9. On January 13, 2017, Collab9 filed an action against PCM, Inc. and its subsidiary, En Pointe Technologies Sales, LLC, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. The complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company’s processing of transactions with certain customers whose contracts the Company purchased the rights to under the APA following the closing of the APA, the Company, without authorization, accessed and altered electronically stored data of which Collab9 claims to have retained ownership. It further alleges that, although Collab9 authorized the Company to access the data in question during a post-closing transition period, the Company continued to access and alter the data Collab9 claims to own after an alleged termination of such authorization, and, in so doing, violated California’s Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The Company believes the claims are wholly without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the claims. On February 21, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the APA governs this dispute and contains a provision designating New Castle County, Delaware as the exclusive forum in which claims arising out of or relating to the APA may be brought. Following briefing and oral argument on July 12, 2017, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss. We do not know whether Collab9 will refile the claim asserted in this action in a Delaware court. If a new action is filed in Delaware, the outcome of this matter is uncertain and, as a result, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss that could result in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued for any liability that may result from the resolution of this matter. California Litigation Against Yunus, Ovex, Din and Zones. On February 22, 2017, En Pointe filed an action against former employee Imran Yunus in California Superior Court alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and other claims relating to Mr. Yunus’s departure from his employment at En Pointe to commence employment at a competitor. After discovering new facts about an alleged conspiracy to cause Ovex employees to resign and join a competitor, En Pointe amended the complaint on June 1, 2017 to add Zones, Inc., Ovex and Bob Din as defendants. In its complaint, En Pointe seeks damages against Zones, Yunus, and Din, and injunctive relief against all defendants. The core allegations relate to an alleged scheme orchestrated by defendant Din to conspire with Ovex management to cause Ovex employees to leave Ovex, taking En Pointe’s confidential information and trade secrets, and join competitor Zones. On June 6, 2017, a temporary restraining order was issued by the court in which defendants were ordered, among other things, to immediately provide En Pointe with access to information in their possession and to not use or disclose En Pointe’s trade secrets and confidential information. Ovex partially complied with the order and En Pointe continues to work with Ovex to complete the transfer to En Pointe of certain information in Ovex’s possession which En Pointe uses in connection with its business. On July 13, 2017, the court denied En Pointe’s request for a preliminary injunction, without prejudice, and dissolved the temporary restraining order for periods after July 13, 2017 without relieving defendants of their obligations while the temporary restraining order was in effect. The court based its decision primarily upon its determination that, at this stage of the litigation, there lacked sufficient evidence at this time to support the continued need for injunctive relief. A case management conference was held on July 27, 2017, at which a trial date was set for August 27, 2018. Pakistan Litigation. On June 3, 2017, Ovex filed an action in Pakistan against En Pointe and PCM’s subsidiary in Pakistan claiming that En Pointe breached a contract pursuant to which Ovex provided En Pointe with back-office administrative support and customer service support. The complaint sought damages, declaratory relief that En Pointe’s termination of services contract should be suspended, and other injunctive relief. On the same date, the court in Pakistan issued a temporary order suspending the termination of the services contract pending a further hearing on the action and indicating that such order will not affect any other order or proceeding of any other competent judicial authority. En Pointe has filed applications before the court in Pakistan seeking orders dismissing the injunction and staying the case filed by Ovex seeking damages. En Pointe’s applications are based on its assertion that any matters to be litigated arising out of or in connection with the services contract is subject to a binding and enforceable exclusive arbitration clause in the services contract. The Company believes the claims by Ovex are speculative and wholly without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the claims. However, the outcome of this matter is uncertain and, as a result, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss that could result in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued for any liability that may result from the resolution of this matter. Ovex Arbitration. On June 6, 2017, En Pointe commenced arbitration against Ovex claiming damages arising from various claimed breaches by Ovex of the services contract between the parties. On July 7, 2017, an emergency arbitrator granted En Pointe some interim relief, including (i) a declaration that the arbitration clause in the services contract is valid and not waived, (ii) that any claim relating to termination of the services contract, or for beach of the contract, or for damages arising out of the services contract must be conducted within the arbitration, and (iii) that the services contract terminates no later than August 18, 2017. A permanent arbitrator for the action was appointed on August 3, 2017. Federal Anti-Suit Injunction Action. On June 12, 2017, En Pointe filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to compel arbitration for claims relating to the services contract with Ovex and for an anti-suit injunction against Ovex. In this action, En Pointe has sought an order directing that any claims for damages arising out of the services contract must occur in arbitration, and any attempt to pursue damages in a foreign jurisdiction will be blocked by an anti-suit injunction. The court has set a hearing on En Pointe’s petition for September 18, 2017. *Securities Class Action.* On May 3, 2017, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Miller v. PCM Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03364 (C.D. Cal. filed May 3, 2017). In this action, plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of PCM securities from June 17, 2015 through May 2, 2017, alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, by intentionally or recklessly making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that the financial statements of En Pointe, a company PCM acquired in 2015, materially overstated the profitability of En Pointe’s business. The complaint seeks unspecified damages against the defendants on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company’s stock between June 17, 2015 and May 2, 2017. On July 27, 2017, the court appointed three individuals as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of lead plaintiffs’ counsel. The defendants have not been served, and there is no current deadline for defendants to respond to the complaint. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint and will vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, the outcome of this matter is uncertain and, as a result, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss that could result in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued for any liability that may result from the resolution of this matter.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2017

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

11. Commitments and Contingencies

Total rent expense under our operating leases, net of sublease income, was $1.5 million in each of the three month periods ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and $2.9 million and $3.0 million in the six month periods ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Some of our leases contain renewal options and escalation clauses, and require us to pay taxes, insurance and maintenance costs.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we receive claims of and become subject to consumer protection, employment, intellectual property and other litigation related to the conduct of our business. Any such litigation could result in a material amount of legal or related expenses and be time consuming and could divert our management and key personnel from our business operations. In connection with any such litigation, we may be subject to significant damages or equitable remedies relating to the operation of our business. Any such litigation may materially harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

As described above in Note 3, we acquired certain assets of En Pointe Technologies in 2015. The assets were acquired by an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of PCM, which subsidiary now operates under the En Pointe brand (“En Pointe”). We are currently involved in several disputes related to the En Pointe acquisition as described below. Any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution process could be costly and time consuming and could divert our management and key personnel from our business operations. In connection with any such matters, we may be subject to significant damages or equitable remedies relating to the operation of our business and could incur significant costs in asserting, defending, or settling any such matters. While we intend to pursue and/or defend these actions vigorously, we cannot determine with any certainty the costs or outcome of such pending or future matters, and they may materially harm our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Delaware Litigation with Collab9. On December 5, 2016, Collab9, Inc. (formerly, En Pointe Technologies Sales, Inc.) filed an action against PCM, Inc. and its subsidiary, En Pointe Technologies Sales, LLC, in the Superior Court of Delaware in New Castle County, Delaware. The action arises out of a March 12, 2015 Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) pursuant to which the Company acquired assets of Collab9’s information technology solutions business. Collab9’s complaint alleges that the Company breached the APA by failing to pay Collab9 the full amount of the periodic “earn-out” payments to which Collab9 is entitled under the APA. The complaint also alleges that the Company breached an obligation to cooperate with Collab9’s evaluation of its claim for breach of the APA’s earn-out provisions. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages Collab9 is seeking, but asserts that the amount of underpayment is “millions of dollars.” On February 8, 2017, the Company filed an answer to Collab9’s complaint in which the Company denied that it breached the APA and asserted that there is no merit in Collab9’s claim. On June 23, 2017, Collab9 informed the Company that Collab9 believes it has additional claims that the Company (i) breached an alleged obligation under the APA to provide a SAP software license to Collab9, (ii) improperly used, manipulated and/or copied data residing on the acquired business’ information technology platform, and (iii) improperly terminated Collab9’s access to certain software and data residing on that platform; however, Collab9 has not amended its complaint to include these claims. The court has not yet established a schedule for pretrial proceedings or for trial on the merits of Collab9’s claims. The Company believes the claims are speculative and wholly without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the claims. However, the outcome of this matter is uncertain and, as a result, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss that could result in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued for any liability that may result from the resolution of this matter.

On April 11, 2017, the Company amended its answer to include counterclaims against the sellers in the Collab 9 transaction, including Collab9. These counterclaims assert claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, and intentional misrepresentation. The counterclaims include allegations that the sellers intentionally breached their representations and warranties concerning the financial statements of the business whose assets the Company acquired under the APA, and the need for minority business certifications which were required for certain acquired contracts under the APA. The counterclaims also include allegations that the sellers failed to disclose related party interests or retained control over Ovex Technologies (Private) Limited (“Ovex”), a third party operation in Pakistan that provided support functions for the acquired business. At this time, the outcome of this matter is uncertain.

California Litigation with Collab9. On January 13, 2017, Collab9 filed an action against PCM, Inc. and its subsidiary, En Pointe Technologies Sales, LLC, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. The complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company’s processing of transactions with certain customers whose contracts the Company purchased the rights to under the APA following the closing of the APA, the Company, without authorization, accessed and altered electronically stored data of which Collab9 claims to have retained ownership. It further alleges that, although Collab9 authorized the Company to access the data in question during a post-closing transition period, the Company continued to access and alter the data Collab9 claims to own after an alleged termination of such authorization, and, in so doing, violated California’s Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The Company believes the claims are wholly without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the claims. On February 21, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the APA governs this dispute and contains a provision designating New Castle County, Delaware as the exclusive forum in which claims arising out of or relating to the APA may be brought. Following briefing and oral argument on July 12, 2017, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss. We do not know whether Collab9 will refile the claim asserted in this action in a Delaware court. If a new action is filed in Delaware, the outcome of this matter is uncertain and, as a result, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss that could result in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued for any liability that may result from the resolution of this matter.

California Litigation Against Yunus, Ovex, Din and Zones. On February 22, 2017, En Pointe filed an action against former employee Imran Yunus in California Superior Court alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and other claims relating to Mr. Yunus’s departure from his employment at En Pointe to commence employment at a competitor. After discovering new facts about an alleged conspiracy to cause Ovex employees to resign and join a competitor, En Pointe amended the complaint on June 1, 2017 to add Zones, Inc., Ovex and Bob Din as defendants. In its complaint, En Pointe seeks damages against Zones, Yunus, and Din, and injunctive relief against all defendants. The core allegations relate to an alleged scheme orchestrated by defendant Din to conspire with Ovex management to cause Ovex employees to leave Ovex, taking En Pointe’s confidential information and trade secrets, and join competitor Zones. On June 6, 2017, a temporary restraining order was issued by the court in which defendants were ordered, among other things, to immediately provide En Pointe with access to information in their possession and to not use or disclose En Pointe’s trade secrets and confidential information. Ovex partially complied with the order and En Pointe continues to work with Ovex to complete the transfer to En Pointe of certain information in Ovex’s possession which En Pointe uses in connection with its business. On July 13, 2017, the court denied En Pointe’s request for a preliminary injunction, without prejudice, and dissolved the temporary restraining order for periods after July 13, 2017 without relieving defendants of their obligations while the temporary restraining order was in effect. The court based its decision primarily upon its determination that, at this stage of the litigation, there lacked sufficient evidence at this time to support the continued need for injunctive relief. A case management conference was held on July 27, 2017, at which a trial date was set for August 27, 2018.

Pakistan Litigation. On June 3, 2017, Ovex filed an action in Pakistan against En Pointe and PCM’s subsidiary in Pakistan claiming that En Pointe breached a contract pursuant to which Ovex provided En Pointe with back-office administrative support and customer service support. The complaint sought damages, declaratory relief that En Pointe’s termination of services contract should be suspended, and other injunctive relief. On the same date, the court in Pakistan issued a temporary order suspending the termination of the services contract pending a further hearing on the action and indicating that such order will not affect any other order or proceeding of any other competent judicial authority. En Pointe has filed applications before the court in Pakistan seeking orders dismissing the injunction and staying the case filed by Ovex seeking damages. En Pointe’s applications are based on its assertion that any matters to be litigated arising out of or in connection with the services contract is subject to a binding and enforceable exclusive arbitration clause in the services contract. The Company believes the claims by Ovex are speculative and wholly without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the claims. However, the outcome of this matter is uncertain and, as a result, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss that could result in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued for any liability that may result from the resolution of this matter.

Ovex Arbitration. On June 6, 2017, En Pointe commenced arbitration against Ovex claiming damages arising from various claimed breaches by Ovex of the services contract between the parties. On July 7, 2017, an emergency arbitrator granted En Pointe some interim relief, including (i) a declaration that the arbitration clause in the services contract is valid and not waived, (ii) that any claim relating to termination of the services contract, or for beach of the contract, or for damages arising out of the services contract must be conducted within the arbitration, and (iii) that the services contract terminates no later than August 18, 2017. A permanent arbitrator for the action was appointed on August 3, 2017.

Federal Anti-Suit Injunction Action. On June 12, 2017, En Pointe filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to compel arbitration for claims relating to the services contract with Ovex and for an anti-suit injunction against Ovex. In this action, En Pointe has sought an order directing that any claims for damages arising out of the services contract must occur in arbitration, and any attempt to pursue damages in a foreign jurisdiction will be blocked by an anti-suit injunction. The court has set a hearing on En Pointe’s petition for September 18, 2017.

Securities Class Action. On May 3, 2017, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Miller v. PCM Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03364 (C.D. Cal. filed May 3, 2017). In this action, plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of PCM securities from June 17, 2015 through May 2, 2017, alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, by intentionally or recklessly making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that the financial statements of En Pointe, a company PCM acquired in 2015, materially overstated the profitability of En Pointe’s business. The complaint seeks unspecified damages against the defendants on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company’s stock between June 17, 2015 and May 2, 2017. On July 27, 2017, the court appointed three individuals as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of lead plaintiffs’ counsel. The defendants have not been served, and there is no current deadline for defendants to respond to the complaint. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint and will vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, the outcome of this matter is uncertain and, as a result, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss that could result in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued for any liability that may result from the resolution of this matter.