2.2.0.25falsefalse1100 - Disclosure - CONTINGENCYtruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDfalsefalse1/1/2011 - 3/31/2011 USD ($) USD ($) / shares $D2011Q1http://www.sec.gov/CIK0000934448duration2011-01-01T00:00:002011-03-31T00:00:00USDStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170SharesStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDPerShareDividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDUSD$2true0dgit_ContingencyDisclosureAbstractdgitfalsenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherxbrli:stringItemTypestringNo definition available.falsefalseCONTINGENCY3false0us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseterselabel1falsefalsefalse00<table style="font-size:10pt; font-family:'Times New Roman',times,serif;"> <tr> <td> 10.  CONTINGENCY   In September 2010, a securities class-action lawsuit captioned Duncan v. Ginsburg, et al, was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (10 Civ. 6523). Subsequently, an identical lawsuit by the same plaintiff, also captioned Duncan v. Ginsburg, et al, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (10 Civ. 1769), and a similar lawsuit, captioned Tours v. DG FastChannel Inc., et al, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by a different plaintiff (10 Civ. 6930). The Northern District of Texas lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff and the other two lawsuits were consolidated before Judge Richard J. Sullivan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned In re DG FastChannel, Inc. Securities Litigation (10 Civ. 6523). On November 24, 2010, Judge Sullivan appointed a lead plaintiff and ordered that a consolidated amended complaint be filed. On January 24, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired DG FastChannel common stock between August 4, 2010 and August 27, 2010, inclusive. The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false or misleading statements of material fact, or failed to disclose material facts, about the Companys financial condition during the class period. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. While the outcome of such lawsuits cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company intends to defend the action vigorously.   We expect our defense costs and any loss that may result from this claim will be covered under our insurance policies.   We are involved in a variety of other legal actions arising from the ordinary course of business. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material effect on our financial statements.  </td></tr></table> 10.  CONTINGENCY   In September 2010, a securities class-action lawsuit captioned Duncan v. Ginsburg, et al, was filed against the Company andfalsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringIncludes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 falsefalseCONTINGENCY12CONTINGENCYUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue