Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)	6 Months Ended
Jul. 29, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, the Company is involved in litigation arising from the operation of its business that is considered routine and incidental to its business. The Company estimates exposures and establishes reserves for amounts that are probable and can be reasonably estimated. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable and the outcome of legal proceedings and other contingencies could be unexpected or differ from the Company’s reserves. The Company does not believe it is reasonably possible that a loss in excess of the amounts recognized in the consolidated financial statements as of July 29, 2017 would have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. For information related to specific contingent losses, see Note I in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company's 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K, and the updates provided below. On June 20, 2017, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal issued a ruling confirming the ruling of the Amsterdam District Court in the previously announced litigation related to the sale of the Company’s European Printing Systems Division, rejecting the purchaser’s claims in their entirety and awarding costs to the Company. The purchaser has not to date filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the Netherlands; however, if the purchaser were to file an appeal and prevail, it could result in an adjustment, which may be material, to the loss the Company recorded for the sale. On August 4, 2017 a purported class action lawsuit relating to the Merger was filed against the Company, each of its directors, Sycamore, Merger Sub and Parent, captioned Raymond Haag v. Staples, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-11447 (“Haag”). Three additional purported class action lawsuits were also filed against the Company and each of its directors, on August 8, 2017 captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Staples, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-11464 (“Bushansky”), on August 8, 2017 captioned Michael Huntley v. Staples, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-11467 (“Huntley”), and on August 10, 2017 captioned Leif Haugen v. Staples, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-11480 (“Haugen”). Each of the lawsuits was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the defendants for allegedly disseminating a false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Merger. Each of the plaintiffs seeks to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the Merger. In addition, plaintiffs variously seek other forms of injunctive and declaratory relief, including declaring that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the 1934 Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder; declaring that the proxy statement is materially false or misleading; enjoining the defendants from proceeding with any vote on the Merger; directing the defendants to disseminate a proxy statement that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material facts required in it or necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading; rescinding the Merger or awarding rescissory damages to the extent already consummated; and requiring an accounting of all damages caused and profits obtained by the defendants. In addition, each of the plaintiffs seeks an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. The Company and its directors believe all four of these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. .

Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is involved in litigation arising from the operation of its business that is considered routine and incidental to its business. The Company estimates exposures and establishes reserves for amounts that are probable and can be reasonably estimated. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable and the outcome of legal proceedings and other contingencies could be unexpected or differ from the Company’s reserves. The Company does not believe it is reasonably possible that a loss in excess of the amounts recognized in the consolidated financial statements as of July 29, 2017 would have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. For information related to specific contingent losses, see Note I in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company's 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K, and the updates provided below.

On June 20, 2017, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal issued a ruling confirming the ruling of the Amsterdam District Court in the previously announced litigation related to the sale of the Company’s European Printing Systems Division, rejecting the purchaser’s claims in their entirety and awarding costs to the Company. The purchaser has not to date filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the Netherlands; however, if the purchaser were to file an appeal and prevail, it could result in an adjustment, which may be material, to the loss the Company recorded for the sale.

On August 4, 2017 a purported class action lawsuit relating to the Merger was filed against the Company, each of its directors, Sycamore, Merger Sub and Parent, captioned Raymond Haag v. Staples, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-11447 (“Haag”). Three additional purported class action lawsuits were also filed against the Company and each of its directors, on August 8, 2017 captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Staples, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-11464 (“Bushansky”), on August 8, 2017 captioned Michael Huntley v. Staples, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-11467 (“Huntley”), and on August 10, 2017 captioned Leif Haugen v. Staples, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-11480 (“Haugen”). Each of the lawsuits was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the defendants for allegedly disseminating a false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Merger. Each of the plaintiffs seeks to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the Merger. In addition, plaintiffs variously seek other forms of injunctive and declaratory relief, including declaring that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the 1934 Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder; declaring that the proxy statement is materially false or misleading; enjoining the defendants from proceeding with any vote on the Merger; directing the defendants to disseminate a proxy statement that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material facts required in it or necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading; rescinding the Merger or awarding rescissory damages to the extent already consummated; and requiring an accounting of all damages caused and profits obtained by the defendants. In addition, each of the plaintiffs seeks an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. The Company and its directors believe all four of these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously.