Commitments & Contingencies (Notes)	9 Months Ended
Dec. 29, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	11. Commitments and Contingencies The Company mitigates credit risk by transacting with highly rated counterparties for foreign exchange contracts, letters of credit and other transactions where counterparty risk is a factor. The Company has evaluated the non-performance risks associated with the Company's lenders and other parties and believes them to be insignificant. On or about November 29, 2018, the Company and members of the Board of Directors were named as defendants in a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon by alleged stockholders of the Company in connection with the proposed Merger. The complaint was dated November 29, 2018 and was captioned Brian Morris et. al. v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al. Five additional complaints were subsequently filed, two in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and three in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon. The cases filed in the U.S. District Court were dated December 6, 2018 and December 12, 2018 and captioned Melvyn Klein et. al. v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al. and Donald Mager et. al. v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al., respectively. The complaints filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court were dated December 5, 2018, December 5, 2018 and December 13, 2018 and captioned Michael Kent et. al v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al., Christopher Stanley et. al v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al. and Eduardo Colmenares et. al. v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al. These lawsuits are purported class actions brought on behalf of Company stockholders, asserting various claims against members of the Board of Directors, MKS, and Merger Sub, including breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits allege that the Merger does not appropriately value the Company, and that the Company’s Merger related disclosures fail to disclose certain material information regarding the Merger. These complaints purport to seek unspecified damages and may seek injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the Merger. The Company believes that the claims in these complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this litigation. The Company provided supplemental Merger related disclosures to eliminate the burden and expense of litigation and to avoid any possible disruption to the Merger that could result from further litigation. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an adverse effect on the operations of the Company. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger. The Company may also be party to various other litigations arising in the normal course of business. Currently, the Company is not party to any other litigation it believes would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

11. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company mitigates credit risk by transacting with highly rated counterparties for foreign exchange contracts, letters of credit and other transactions where counterparty risk is a factor. The Company has evaluated the non-performance risks associated with the Company's lenders and other parties and believes them to be insignificant.

On or about November 29, 2018, the Company and members of the Board of Directors were named as defendants in a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon by alleged stockholders of the Company in connection with the proposed Merger. The complaint was dated November 29, 2018 and was captioned Brian Morris et. al. v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al. Five additional complaints were subsequently filed, two in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and three in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon. The cases filed in the U.S. District Court were dated December 6, 2018 and December 12, 2018 and captioned Melvyn Klein et. al. v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al. and Donald Mager et. al. v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al., respectively. The complaints filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court were dated December 5, 2018, December 5, 2018 and December 13, 2018 and captioned Michael Kent et. al v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al., Christopher Stanley et. al v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al. and Eduardo Colmenares et. al. v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al.

These lawsuits are purported class actions brought on behalf of Company stockholders, asserting various claims against members of the Board of Directors, MKS, and Merger Sub, including breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits allege that the Merger does not appropriately value the Company, and that the Company’s Merger related disclosures fail to disclose certain material information regarding the Merger. These complaints purport to seek unspecified damages and may seek injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the Merger.

The Company believes that the claims in these complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this litigation. The Company provided supplemental Merger related disclosures to eliminate the burden and expense of litigation and to avoid any possible disruption to the Merger that could result from further litigation. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an adverse effect on the operations of the Company. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger.

The Company may also be party to various other litigations arising in the normal course of business. Currently, the Company is not party to any other litigation it believes would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.