Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Obligations In the ordinary course of business, the Company issues purchase orders based on its current manufacturing needs. As of March 31, 2020, the Company had non-cancelable purchase commitments of $91.7 million, of which $90.2 million are expected to be paid within the year ending December 31, 2020. Legal Proceedings The Company is currently involved in various legal proceedings. As required under ASC 450, Contingencies , the Company accrues for contingencies when it believes that a loss is probable and that it can reasonably estimate the amount of any such loss. The Company has not recorded any accrual for contingent liabilities associated with the legal proceedings described below based on its belief that any potential loss, while reasonably possible, is not probable. Further, any possible range of loss in these matters cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. The Company believes that it has valid defenses with respect to legal proceedings pending against it. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and it is possible that cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of this contingency or because of the diversion of management’s attention and the creation of significant expenses. On January 10, 2018, a lawsuit was filed against a number of individuals, governmental agencies, and corporate entities, including the Company and one of its former subsidiaries, Aesynt Incorporated (“Aesynt”), which, through a series of mergers, has been merged into the Company, in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia, captioned Ruth Ann Warner, as Guardian of Jonathan James Brewster Warner v. Centra Health, Inc., et al., Case No. CL18-152-1 . The complaint sought monetary recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in addition to certain declaratory relief based upon, as against the individuals, governmental agencies, and corporate entities other than the Company and Aesynt, allegations of the use of excessive force, unlawful detention, false imprisonment, battery, simple and gross negligence and negligent hiring, detention, and training; and, as against the Company and Aesynt, claims of product liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranties. The Company and Aesynt were never served with the complaint. Upon motion of the plaintiff, the Court issued an order on February 21, 2019 nonsuiting (dismissing) the case without prejudice. On August 21, 2019, a new lawsuit was filed against the Company and Aesynt, in the Circuit Court for the County of Albemarle, Virginia, captioned Ruth Ann Warner, as Guardian of Jonathan James Brewster Warner v. Aesynt Incorporated, et al., Case No CL19-1301 . The complaint seeks monetary recovery of damages based upon claims of product liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranties. The Company and Aesynt have not been served with the complaint. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. A declaratory judgment action was filed against the Company, on August 30, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Zurich American Insurance Company; American Guarantee & Liability Company v. Omnicell, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-CV-05345 . The complaint seeks a declaration that the plaintiffs have no duty to defend or indemnify the Company in connection with the underlying litigation, Yana Mazya, et al. v. Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital, et al., Case No. 2018-CH-07161 pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (a class action lawsuit filed against a customer of the Company, the customer’s parent company, and two vendors of medication dispensing systems, one of which is the Company, seeking statutory damages and certain declaratory, injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action directed to allegations of violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) and of negligence by the defendants from which the Company was subsequently dismissed without prejudice) (“Mazya Action”), together with claims for reimbursement and unjust enrichment relating to the defense of the Mazya Action in the form of attorneys’ fees and other related costs. The Company has not responded to the complaint. On February 12, 2019, the Court stayed the action pending the outcome of the Mazya Action and administratively closed the case. On October 15, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice advising the Court of the dismissal of the Company from the Mazya Action and requesting that the Court lift the stay in the case and set dates for filing a responsive pleading by the Company and initial discovery and scheduling matters. By order dated November 13, 2019, the Court (i) lifted the stay in the case, (ii) set a case management conference for February 5, 2020, and (iii) ordered the parties to file a joint case management statement by January 29, 2020. The parties subsequently reached a settlement of the case in principle and the Court, after notice of the parties, continued the case management conference until April 29, 2020. The parties entered into a written settlement agreement on April 9, 2020. Since the conditions precedent in the settlement agreement to dismissing the case had not yet been fulfilled, the Court, upon the petition of the parties, again continued the case management conference until May 27, 2020. Upon fulfillment of the conditions precedent to finalizing the settlement, the plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal with prejudice on May 4, 2020, thereby finally terminating the action. A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, on June 5, 2019, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, captioned Corey Heard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Omnicell, Inc., Case No. 2019-CH-06817 . The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages in the form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the alternative, negligent violation of BIPA, and certain declaratory, injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action directed to allegations of violation of BIPA by the Company. The complaint was served on the Company on June 13, 2019. On July 31, 2019, the Company filed a motion to stay or consolidate the case with the Mazya Action. The Court subsequently, on October 10, 2019, denied the motion, without prejudice, as being moot in view of the Company’s dismissal from the Mazya Action. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 31, 2019. The motion to dismiss is fully-briefed. The hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss was previously set for March 16, 2020, but has been continued to May 27, 2020. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. In August 2019, the Company received a letter from the Denver office of the SEC seeking information related to the Company’s accounting processes and procedures. The Company responded and fully cooperated with the SEC. On February 12, 2020, the Company received a letter from the SEC confirming that it has concluded its investigation and that the SEC does not intend to recommend any enforcement action against the Company. |