Apparently some guy at AT&T made the classic mistake of thinking that blacking text out in a PDF actually removes that text from the actual file. Apparently the information they're trying to hide is, in fact, exactly what I've been saying on this blog since information started to come out about this case:

"Although the plaintiffs ominously refer to the equipment as the 'Surveillance Configuration,' the same physical equipment could be utilized exclusively for other surveillance in full compliance with" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The only thing thats troubling is, typically, if you're accused of something you didn't do, you usually say "I wasn't doing that, I was doing this" rather then saying "The information you have indicates that I might have done that, but its also possible based on the same information that I might have been doing this, that, or the other thing... You can't prove that I was doing exactly that." For example, the redacted text also claims that this might have been an IDS system. It most certainly wasn't. They kind of sound guilty. If they just said "its for CALEA" that would be the end of the discussion, probably. CALEA is not a state secret.